Subconsciousness and Humanity.

[JaysonR]

That awful chicken smell?

LOL!
What a typo!

So, without ongoing emotional self image input, the sense of identity becomes unstable? not sure that really sounds much like olfactory habituation / peripheral receptor fatigue, but I think I see what you're getting at.

Quite. I don't mean to imply the two are analogous; I only used the olfactory habituation as a comparison to how we don't notice the emotional stimulation to our image, but that it is never-the-less present.

Has this emotional self-image input pathway (amygdala to frontal cortex, one would guess?) been positively identified, or is it a plausible hypothesis?

It's practically (meaning, it is used in neurology) identified as a network that runs from the fusiform gyrus (temporal and occipital lobes) to the amygdala.

You can read the full original paper (much has been done since then, but this is the origin):
http://cbc.ucsd.edu/pdf/Capgras Syndrome - P Royal Soc.pdf

There's more research underway that now focuses on using capgras syndrome to study the formation of memory, as what appears to happen in capgras (regular and subjective) is that memories still exist and are formed, but the categorical relationship between them is disrupted so that each memory is categorically its own identity rather than a single part of several memories that make up a collective identity.
This is studied as individuals with this syndrome can have identity, but it's identity that is incredibly segmented to near what we might call, "one-dimensional characters" and are not able to carry complex associative identities. However, interestingly enough, they are capable of having memory of having complex identities, but they can't identify them when they are present in front of them due to the severing.
It's somewhat like remembering that you could play piano, but not being able to play piano anymore; even though you can identify all of the notes on the keyboard and explain the fundamentals of how one plays a piano.

So, benign emotional recognition of self-identity is a requirement of your definition of consciousness despite not being a requirement of consciousness itself

What I mean by that is that it exists in the species as a norm.
For instance, an iguana would not fit into this description as it hasn't a ventral visual system. As such, it is incapable of object recognition. All an iguana can see is motion, not what the object is, as it only has a dorsal visual stream.
Because of this, the iguana doesn't have the ability to create complex identities since it is incapable of recognizing even an isolated instance of object recognition.

Isn't rationalization a feature of consciousness per se?

Yes; in fact, there's a chance that we may be able to identify consciousness by residual effect of the animal's response to solving conflicting signal input that places direct illogical input against a normal input (or two counter logical inputs) and seeing if the animal can rationalize a way to solve the otherwise endless loop.
Humans can solve these problems, and that's why we see very odd behaviors from people with things like subjective capgras.
There are birds, on the other hand, that attack certain colors and so if you paint an egg that color, it will just bounce endlessly back and forth between deciding to attack the egg or protect it, until you change the environment to free it from the dead-lock.

I'm wondering whether this linguistic/conceptual awkwardness says more about the elusiveness of the concept of 'consciousness' than about your definition...

It seems (like purpose, intent, free will, etc), to be subject to a Heisenberg-like uncertainty principle, where the closer you examine it, and the more precisely you try to pin it down, the fuzzier it becomes.

The "state" theory for consciousness essentially rests on this proposition.
It proposes that there is no single finite topography for consciousness, but that it is instead a state of the brain in processes.

If this results as true, then there are very large ethical debates to follow.
For example, is a coma patient capable of self-aware consciousness even if they are not wakefully conscious?
If the "state" is not current, will this indicate that the individual is not "currently" self-aware and not a cognitive consciousness?

We're not really sure on these things yet, but my hunch (completely just a hunch based on what we do know and how I think) is that if you retard the brain enough, self-aware consciousness is effectively absent.
We may not like claiming that another human isn't capable of self-aware consciousness because our empathetic visual input will transpose our abilities onto them by evolutionary motive of survival need, but, in my opinion, the individual is actually not cognitively present as a self-identity in some medical cases, and as such, the only thing keeping them claimed as a "person" (in the philosophical sense of that term) is our cultural sympathy towards their visage.

(My Will actually states that should I ever be in advanced stages of aggressive Alzheimer's or MS, that my life be ended [moved out of country and euthanized if needed], as "I" will no longer exist.)

 

[Navigator]

Hey Jas

I think you mentioned how consciousness has been measured in a comatose body through asking questions and getting the individual to think on one thing to answer ‘yes’ and on another thing to answer ‘no’ and that those two things produced activity in the brain in different areas from the other.

When measuring brain activity, is conscious thought distinguishable from subconscious activity?

 

[JaysonR]

(For those reading along; Nav is referring to, "A new era of coma and consciousness science": http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~jdvicto/pdfs/owscly09.pdf)

Nav,
Essentially; yes.
Resting state data is discernible from cognitive execution data in an fMRI.

I'm not aware of any method of recognizing associative subconscious data processing during cognitive executive data processing signals, but we can discern "idle" processing.

 

[dlorde]

The "state" theory for consciousness essentially rests on this proposition.
It proposes that there is no single finite topography for consciousness, but that it is instead a state of the brain in processes.

If this results as true, then there are very large ethical debates to follow.
For example, is a coma patient capable of self-aware consciousness even if they are not wakefully conscious?
If the "state" is not current, will this indicate that the individual is not "currently" self-aware and not a cognitive consciousness?

We're not really sure on these things yet, but my hunch (completely just a hunch based on what we do know and how I think) is that if you retard the brain enough, self-aware consciousness is effectively absent.
We may not like claiming that another human isn't capable of self-aware consciousness because our empathetic visual input will transpose our abilities onto them by evolutionary motive of survival need, but, in my opinion, the individual is actually not cognitively present as a self-identity in some medical cases, and as such, the only thing keeping them claimed as a "person" (in the philosophical sense of that term) is our cultural sympathy towards their visage.

I've noticed that in the later stages of dementia, when all apparent conscious awareness and personality have faded, you occasionally see a characteristic behaviour triggered that can appear quite sophisticated and conscious - as if the personality has popped back into the shell to animate it with a gesture and a witticism, for example. One soon realises that this is just an automatic response, perhaps the vestige of some well established conversational habit.

But identifying the transition from continuous conscious awareness, where such habitual snippets and behaviours are creatively and improvisationally strung together into an active personality, to the occasional triggering of such behaviours in the absence of conscious awareness, or with partial or intermittent awareness, is problematic.

The response to music in such cases can be even more marked, with an apparent reanimation for many minutes - one wonders if this is a temporary reappearence of low level conscious awareness or just a prolonged emotional response without consciousness.

I suspect only a scan to identify the active brain areas and their interactions can definitively establish the likely degree of conscious awareness in these individuals.

 

[Dancing David]

(For those reading along; Nav is referring to, "A new era of coma and consciousness science": http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~jdvicto/pdfs/owscly09.pdf)

Nav,
Essentially; yes.
Resting state data is discernible from cognitive execution data in an fMRI.

I'm not aware of any method of recognizing associative subconscious data processing during cognitive executive data processing signals, but we can discern "idle" processing.

And associative memory/pattern recognition is a crucial part of consciousness, so I would not relegate it to 'unconscious'.

Again I over draw the point.

 

[Navigator]

(For those reading along; Nav is referring to, "A new era of coma and consciousness science": http://www-users.med.cornell.edu/~jdvicto/pdfs/owscly09.pdf)

Nav,
Essentially; yes.
Resting state data is discernible from cognitive execution data in an fMRI.

I'm not aware of any method of recognizing associative subconscious data processing during cognitive executive data processing signals, but we can discern "idle" processing.

Well in thinking about what is seen, and why I asked – I understand that what is being observed can be interpreted at least two specific ways depending on the bias.

When you speak of the studies re capgras syndrome what is observed is interpreted on the reasonable assumption that the brain is not only that which creates consciousness but that it is also required to work correctly in order that conscious identity is maintained.

When I think about a machine – say the giant earthmover MAN TAKRAF RB293 – I understand in general terms the complexity of the machine and what it is able to be used for but I do not think of the machine as that which of its own volition, moves earth.

It requires something to operate it. If the machines hydraulics is broken then no amount of pulling levers and flicking switches is going to make that machine function as it normally does.

In relation to capgras, the brain is broken and consciousness cannot use the brain in the ordinary manner. Vital aspects like memory function are not operating and so there is an inability for consciousness to utilize the brain effectively and efficiently.

In a similar way, the comatose body can have a consciousness operating in identity awareness because the brain is not damaged in that way which prevents consciousness from maintaining identity based on memory.

Because it is unknown exactly what happens to consciousness when a body dies – it is assumed by many that consciousness dies also but it is also assumed by many that it does not (see NDE’s OBEs etc) and in the case of the latter, it could be argued that a conscious awareness which has experienced capgras, once free of that environment could also function as an intact self awareness.

I recently read that people who have been blind all their life have need able to see while experiencing NDE. This is taken as evidence of consciousness being able to exist without the body/brain by a lot of people.
I personally don’t know one way or the other, but am interested in why such a thing would happen at all, and has been happening probably since the dawn of consciousness and is largely the reason why myths on afterlife and gods etc persist.

It is often argued that the myths come from some sense of wanting to exist forever, which may have validity, but we don’t know that these experiences are the actual cause of the beliefs rather than the beliefs are the cause of the experiences. I have read accounts where people have experienced OBEs even though they have strongly believed that consciousness cannot possibly exist after the brain has died.

I have also read accounts where OBEs seem more real to the individual than normal reality. I have experienced it myself and remember thinking while the experience was happening, how it seemed more real than normal reality.

If it were truly just a trick of the consciousness, I have to wonder how consciousness can create an illusion of the same environment yet the environment same is experienced as being more real than the normal one experienced through form.

What does consciousness have to work with in relation to creating that illusion – only the reality it is experiencing in form, which is just ‘real’ and cannot be ‘more real’ – in theory the experience should only be ‘as real’ not ‘more real.

One answer may be that what is being experienced is not illusion at all and things seem more real because they are not restricted by bodily/brain functions.

Of course it is all speculation either way one chooses to observe.

Does neuroscience focus study on both possibilities or favour the one which is easiest to measure?

 

[JaysonR]

I suspect only a scan to identify the active brain areas and their interactions can definitively establish the likely degree of conscious awareness in these individuals.

Actually, no; that's the problem.

Or rather said, it's not so easy.

Dr. Adrian Owen is really the genius behind the new technique of using fMRI to determine consciousness is vegetative patients, and his work is really remarkable, but he is very clear that we can't prove consciousness with these techniques.
It's more that we can test whether those regions known for cognition are still functioning, and to employ them repeatedly with the individual in hopes of striking a stimulation that causes some increase to their recovery path.

In one case, for example, he showed pictures of known people to a vegetative patient (wakeful vegetation; not a coma) and monitored the fusiform gyrus region to check if her brain was still processing input (surprisingly, until he had done this in 2010 or so; no one had ever checked if vegetative brains could process such input or not).
He saw the region light up and continued with the exercise and allot of hard work later, the patient made her way back to full consciousness.
She's still disabled heavily in regards to physical capability, but she is coherent and able to talk and interact as normal now.

So in a way, what we can see using these techniques is whether or not there is potential; at least, that's how it's being used (though not nearly enough).

But what we can't yet do is put someone in an fMRI and determine if regions of consciousness react to cognition, and we can't because we don't know the topography of consciousness.
What we're doing is playing the odds; we know certain specific regions are engaged for specific cognitive tasks, and we target that region through a test and see if there is a response.

There are those who argue that Dr. Owen's technique results do not indicate consciousness, but instead indicate that the brain is still responsive, though not functional.
In a way, it's an argument that essentially is like claiming that reflex is what's happening, and not will.

Either way, Dr. Owen pushes forward with at least the idea that what he's doing is showing a way to exercise these brains and give them a life-line back to wakefulness; even if we can't determine originally if they are or are not capable of consciousness.

This is one of the medical reasons that the problem of consciousness is valid to pursue answering.

 

[JaysonR]

And associative memory/pattern recognition is a crucial part of consciousness, so I would not relegate it to 'unconscious'.

Again I over draw the point.

Sorry, when I wrote, "associative", I wasn't referring to associative memory, but instead I was referring to the brain activity that is not resting state, nor part of the direct cognitive processing of the given task.
Whenever we tell someone to accomplish some task, there is brain activity that occurs that is not directly related to the cognitive task, nor is it part of their resting state activity.

It's associated to the cognitive activity, but it is not the cognitive activity itself; that's what I meant when I wrote associative subconscious data processing.

 

[dlorde]

... what we can't yet do is put someone in an fMRI and determine if regions of consciousness react to cognition, and we can't because we don't know the topography of consciousness.

Yup; I used the wrong tense... I was thinking of how it would probably be done once it could be done - i.e. once we have a better knowledge of the topography of consciousness. We seem to be making progress.

 

[JaysonR]

If it were truly just a trick of the consciousness, I have to wonder how consciousness can create an illusion of the same environment yet the environment same is experienced as being more real than the normal one experienced through form.

What does consciousness have to work with in relation to creating that illusion – only the reality it is experiencing in form, which is just ‘real’ and cannot be ‘more real’ – in theory the experience should only be ‘as real’ not ‘more real.

One answer may be that what is being experienced is not illusion at all and things seem more real because they are not restricted by bodily/brain functions.

Of course it is all speculation either way one chooses to observe.

Does neuroscience focus study on both possibilities or favour the one which is easiest to measure?

Interestingly enough; you may find the studies on DMT interesting.
It's not uncommon for the brain to determine something as more real than something that is real, even two instances of the same reality.

If you give someone DMT, for example, most people will claim that the experience of the drug was more real than reality, while at the same time citing that everything was extremely surreal in logic.

Our brain is by default set on confirmation bias; our species' survival relied on it.
We only have so much power in the brain (as in watts), and to be efficient, the brain uses a ton of shortcuts to accomplish assembling reality internally.

The more vivid something is, the more "real" our brain considers it.
If you walk around every day numb in emotional stimulant to the world you see in front of you, and then take a drug like DMT, you will most likely claim that what you experienced in the DMT trance was far more real than what you experienced in every day life; all because it is more vivid and impacting.

Hysterical and alarming moments are more real to the brain than benign and predictably safe experiences which are repeated chronically for decades upon decades.
This makes sense because they feel more real to the brain, as the brain has responded to the experiences with more chemical dumps during that time period than it does in a benign daily experience where it makes far more assumptions due to the predictable nature of the daily life.

The fastest way to make something more real to the brain, essentially, is to destabilize everything it knows about reality and then shock it heavily with input that is absolutely impossible as far as the brain would normally accept based on regular experiences and learned information.

This is actually, also, the best way to screw with someone in captivity and replace what they knew as real with what you want to replace as real.
This is how people can believe ideas that are incredible to anyone else to hear.
The difference of the acceptance or rejection of the outrageous has a lot to do with how much emotional imbuement occurred during the experience.

For instance, temporal lobe epilepsy produces incredible experiences which are very commonly cited as far more vivid and real than "this" reality, yet we full well know that what they are experiencing is a sort of 'short circuit' in their temporal lobe and amygdala.
Really benign objects (e.g. a random stick in the woods) can become suddenly more important than life itself and the 'connection' to that random stick can be felt as more real than any other experience.

Does neuroscience favor one over the other?
Neuroscience itself is indifferent and only looks at what it can observe.
It doesn't predict beyond where it can investigate.

Individuals in neuroscience have a range of ideas; most are physicalist in some respect.
Some believe consciousness is an illusion.
And some believe consciousness is separate from the brain.

Now, me?
I'm a physicalist; when presented with the zombie argument, I'll answer that the zombie would have consciousness because if you build a biological body that is identical to a human, then you can't actually build something that doesn't have consciousness when you "turn it on".

If it does, then you failed to build a human biologically; there is an atypical formation somewhere in the brain and thereby that deficiency is holding back full operation of its neurology.

So if you built it "perfectly", then it would have consciousness.
We can deduce this because every "perfectly" created human biology has what we consider to be consciousness.
We haven't one example of a "perfect" human biology that lacks consciousness as we understand it (aside from the argument that no one has consciousness and that it is an illusion of the brain that we are consciously self-aware [I don't agree with this view for quite a few reasons]).


So while I won't tell you that "you're wrong" to refer to the state of things as "consciousness using the brain", as if consciousness is a thing unto itself, I will say that I completely disagree with referring to consciousness in this manner as consciousness has shown no indications of being capable of functioning beyond the brain, or in spite of the brain.

Further beyond this, we have plenty of evidence that the brain creates sensations of existence where existence is not present in the phenomenon of phantom limbs; whereby the brain continues to attempt to translate nerve input as if the limb is still there because it is accustomed the the limb being present, and yet due to the cognitive awareness of the individual, such sensation is met with stark cognitive rejection; causing (most often) a heavy amount of painful experiences caused from the brain critically fighting itself over the condition of reality.

We can pacify the brain over time with training by introducing box mirrors for the patients to stick their remaining parts of their limb into, and on the other side of the box, place their full remaining opposing limb in; the result is that the mirror will make it appear as if the missing limb is present by mirroring the existing limb.
Almost immediately, in about 2/3rd's of patients, the pain greatly reduces.

Over time of repeating this process, the brain can be coached back into accepting the right case of reality; that the limb is actually absent and not needing to feed its input in as if it was existent.

It would take a considerable amount of neuroscientific evidence that we are simply not capable of conducting at this point to prove that consciousness exists as a driver of the brain.
I don't think it's very accurate, however, to compare mechanical equipment with the human body, as those are not similar systems.

We are our body and we are our brain; we are an extension of cellular growth over a vast expanse of time, and life that evolved to monitor its own progress of growth and well-being.

The best statement about consciousness, in my opinion, is that there is no such thing as, "I"; there is only a bunch of "I"'s and a need for a singular output of choice selection; thereby creating an internal collective identity of a singular "I" that isn't actually present biologically.
In other words, our notion of singularity in identity is an illusion of our executive processes doing what it is designed to do (result in a singular output from many inputs).

To then describe to me that consciousness is using the brain is backwards to me.
Our bodies created and use "consciousness" as a tool for the utilitarian good of our collective selves which each wish to continue living.
The human body, then, is a collection of several individual identities systemically and over time.

So, again, from this view; consciousness using the brain is backwards because it is the executive processing of the brain, once again, declaring itself king; even though it is more the case that the executive processing of the brain is more the voice of our internal identities, and is part share in decisions; not king, and not so unique that it can exist without everything else.

To me, when we think this way; to think we can exist beyond or aside from our bodies, it is not too much different from how we used to think humans could live independent from the considerations of the Earth. The idea that we are unique enough to be incapable of relying upon other intertwined systems as a communal whole of life; this is a very common thought in human thinking over much time, and each instance of this type of thinking results from not assessing the importance and respect for the underlying constituents needed to support all of the life taking place.

To me; "I" am that which lives to serve the "us" that is "me".
"I" am not that which exists in spite of the "us" that is "me".

 

[Navigator]

Thanks for that post Jay.
I was thinking a few days back about what you have said in that post and in relation to my post #206 in this thread I will expand on what I was trying to convey.

So while I won't tell you that "you're wrong" to refer to the state of things as "consciousness using the brain", as if consciousness is a thing unto itself, I will say that I completely disagree with referring to consciousness in this manner as consciousness has shown no indications of being capable of functioning beyond the brain, or in spite of the brain.

What would you consider to be indications which consciousness could show you that it is capable of functioning beyond the brain?

The expression ‘in spite of’ which you use is telling in itself as I hope to convey.

To then describe to me that consciousness is using the brain is backwards to me.
Our bodies created and use "consciousness" as a tool for the utilitarian good of our collective selves which each wish to continue living.
The human body, then, is a collection of several individual identities systemically and over time.

I agree with this only I prefer to see the ‘collection’ as a holistic thing – the parts are identifiable as parts, but working as one thing.
In this light, it is not a question of seeing things ‘backwards’ – like describing a human from the feet to the head, rather than from the head to the feet. The important thing is do describe the whole human.

So, again, from this view; consciousness using the brain is backwards because it is the executive processing of the brain, once again, declaring itself king; even though it is more the case that the executive processing of the brain is more the voice of our internal identities, and is part share in decisions; not king, and not so unique that it can exist without everything else.

I am enjoying your use of the word ‘king’ – It would appear that you tend to see those who think that consciousness could exist independently of the brain are thinking this way, that consciousness is ‘king of the castle’, because it gets to continue existing when the rest of the ‘parts’ die.
I can understand this from a certain perspective but don’t necessarily agree that this is the motivation for ‘seeing things backward’ as you believe such thinking involves – I understand the temptation to want to see it this way because I feel that compulsion to think that way about those who go on about the brain as if it were ‘king of the castle’ too.

To me, when we think this way; to think we can exist beyond or aside from our bodies, it is not too much different from how we used to think humans could live independent from the considerations of the Earth. The idea that we are unique enough to be incapable of relying upon other intertwined systems as a communal whole of life; this is a very common thought in human thinking over much time, and each instance of this type of thinking results from not assessing the importance and respect for the underlying constituents needed to support all of the life taking place.

This is very interesting to me. Could you provide some examples of where human beings used to think human beings could live independently from the consideration of the Earth?

To me; "I" am that which lives to serve the "us" that is "me".
"I" am not that which exists in spite of the "us" that is "me".

There is that expression ‘in spite of’ again. I am not sure where you think that any of my posts relay this message, or perhaps that is your general feeling about those who think consciousness might continue on after the body dies?

You mentioned drugs which can confuse the brain and make consciousness experience reality as being ‘more real’ than it is.
This is an indication that the brain can be tricked with drugs and that consciousness is then able to view reality as being more real.

From my own experience, in all my experiences I was not using such drugs, so my brain was able to do this thing and my consciousness was able to experience the ‘more real than’ state independent of drugs.

Over and above this, the consciousness was able to experience being independent of the body, float through the ceiling, and over the house and under the stars and move freely.
All the time, it was not bereft of the feeling of having a ‘body’ and even when moving through the ceiling and roof there was accompanying sight and sound and a physical feeling and thought processes, although the physical feeling was not anything normal, it was nonetheless a physical feeling.

Now (in relation to my last post) what is there to say that all these ‘parts’ you have spoken of, are working together as a team, and none of them consider one to be more important than any other (‘king’ as you say) and are not seeing they will be ‘left behind’ upon death but that they are to continue with consciousness – not as physical things so much but as a copy of or representation of their former ‘selves’ stored within the consciousness through consciousness having experienced these in congregate while in physical form?

So essentially ‘they’ survive also, but in another state – one which is not physical.

Do you see what I am getting at here? While the argument is that the brain is responsible for the experiences consciousness has (and largely seen as ‘king’ from that perspective) it may be that the brain WANTS its consciousness to experience ‘what is to come’ because it knows that upon the bodies death, that is what is going to happen.

In this way it is helping prepare consciousness for the inevitable.

The brain is doing its part in relation to that process.

So ‘we’ may argue ‘who is king’ but the body as a unified wholeness does not argue at all about such things. It is just being.

 

[JaysonR]

What would you consider to be indications which consciousness could show you that it is capable of functioning beyond the brain?

The simplest would be to talk to a consciousness that lacks any physical existence as easily as we can talk to any consciousness in any test environment.

Another would be to show self-aware consciousness of an individual with severe brain damage that is otherwise completely incapable of accomplishing cognitive tasks.

If consciousness can exist regardless of the brain, then the brain's standing shouldn't matter for the consciousness to make communication in test environments.

The expression ‘in spite of’ which you use is telling in itself as I hope to convey.
...
There is that expression ‘in spite of’ again. I am not sure where you think that any of my posts relay this message, or perhaps that is your general feeling about those who think consciousness might continue on after the body dies?

"In spite" referred to damaged brains; nothing else.

I agree with this only I prefer to see the ‘collection’ as a holistic thing – the parts are identifiable as parts, but working as one thing.
In this light, it is not a question of seeing things ‘backwards’ – like describing a human from the feet to the head, rather than from the head to the feet. The important thing is do describe the whole human.

To me, assigning consciousness the ability to supersede the body and brain neglects the holistic take of the human animal.
The brain exists to serve the continuation of the body; I don't see a link to this motive in the idea of consciousness transcending the body and brain.

The want to exist regardless of body or brain is an evolutionary artifact of our biological drive to live and the fact that our brain is capable of abstract conception which allows the opportunity to imagine a difference between ideal and actual to the point of believing there to be a means of living without the body as a solution to the evolutionary drive to continue our body's life when there is no means to do so.

I am enjoying your use of the word ‘king’ – It would appear that you tend to see those who think that consciousness could exist independently of the brain are thinking this way, that consciousness is ‘king of the castle’, because it gets to continue existing when the rest of the ‘parts’ die.
I can understand this from a certain perspective but don’t necessarily agree that this is the motivation for ‘seeing things backward’ as you believe such thinking involves – I understand the temptation to want to see it this way because I feel that compulsion to think that way about those who go on about the brain as if it were ‘king of the castle’ too.

The term, "king", is often a phrasing in neuroscience discussions in reference to the nature of the perception of the executive functions of our brain.
It is well documented that our overt cognition mostly dominates the left-hemisphere, and that this section of the brain has a considerable bias to its own importance, to the point of failure and error.
As such, the term "king" only refers to the idea of being the most important; as the executive processes of our brain (by default) hold themselves to be neurologically.
If we decide something is so, in this region of our brain, then it is so; even if other regions of our brain felt otherwise.
This part of the brain will also suffocate and drown out other regions of brain function in preservation of itself.

This is very interesting to me. Could you provide some examples of where human beings used to think human beings could live independently from the consideration of the Earth?

That's rather simple to do; take a look around at the past hundred years even.
The actions and philosophies of mankind over that hundred years lacks the consideration that the Earth is something that cannot be neglected in pursuit of the progress of man.
Even the pioneering of America by the early settlers was done by claiming that those on the land already were not improving the land and making it do anything for society, and that such was the mark of progress; to take over the land and make it render to the advancement of industry and progress.

You mentioned drugs which can confuse the brain and make consciousness experience reality as being ‘more real’ than it is.
This is an indication that the brain can be tricked with drugs and that consciousness is then able to view reality as being more real.

I also listed temporal lobe epilepsy which doesn't use drugs, but the brain itself imbues more value than is merited to some perception and determines any random object, vision, or sensation as being more real than what is actually real.

In fact, this effect that happens frequently for temporal lobe epilepsy is found in all normal brains as an infrequent impulse.
Humans will find more value and therefore more "reality" in random ideas and objects intermittently throughout their life.
In each case studied, the event involves high amounts of relay between the temporal lobe and the amygdala; regardless of want by the overt cognition of the individual.

The drugs are just a very, very easy way to manipulate the chemical signatures present in the brain toward false imbuement; that is all.
It is not something the brain is incapable of doing on its own.

Regarding OBE's:
We have a pretty solid understanding of OBE's at this point due to the topographical work and study regarding them.

Essentially, we can induce OBE and AS sensations by electrically stimulating the angular gyrus in the brain.
We can do this repeatedly in both atypical and typical brains.
The angular gyrus is a central point for multisensory spatial position recognition.

Meaning, this is the region where all of the input from your senses about space, distance, shape, the feeling of weight, etc... pile into so to summarize a conclusion about your position and its relation to other thing's position.

This region also relates to language and computation, as well as a few other things, for much the same purposes of culminating a sense of conceptual "direction" regarding the information.

So OBE's are neurologically accounted for at this point in almost all reported instances.

 

[Navigator]

Well Jason, you haven’t addressed the idea that the brain induces these experiences (like OBE) because it understands that consciousness is going to continue.

It is not about inducing the brain so that consciousness experiences things like OBE, because obviously the brain can do this thing and in order to do this thing it can be seen to be operating in a certain region. That region can be observed and those observing can interpret the data and agree to that interpretation but as you know, it is a conscious interpretation of the data, rather than an absolute truth.

I don’t accept that you mentioned ‘king’ in regard to consciousness in relation to ‘damaged brains’, unless you are simply stating that people who think ‘consciousness is king’ are brain damaged. Is that what you were inferring?

As you point out, overt cognition mostly dominates the left hemisphere and that the section of that side of the brain has considerable bias as to its own importance.

Do you know if this is the same when someone believes in what is happening according to their observations (overt cognition) in relation to neurology?

For example, is your own bias (which you admit to) coming from the same section of that side of the brain and assigning importance or kingship to the brain?

If you decide something is so, do you do so in that region of the brain – then ‘it is so’ even if the other regions of your brain felt otherwise, or does this type of reasoning come from another region of the brain?

I am thinking that the brain could be used as one thing where all areas of the brain are considered equal.

I am thinking it is possible to be more balanced and use both sides of the brain in a holistic manner, with no areas being ‘king’ over the rest.​

Your examples of human beings living life as if there is no need to nurture the only home they have ever known, (Earth) is something I mentioned in this thread OP – and certainly there are attitudes that seem to assign little or no importance to this logical way of seeing things.

I don’t see that those who have belief that they will continue after the body has died as opposed to those who have belief that there is no more experience for you when the body dies are somehow so different that one or the other belief system will discourage or propel the individual into being more logical about life, the planet, conserving and nurturing, or even having a basic ability to be respectful to others.

If anything, it doesn’t matter what either type believe, because those beliefs do not seem to make a difference, and both types often don’t seem to see any big deal about preservation of the planet as an holistic system.

The one can tend to focus upon some better existence imagined as going to happen in the afterlife, and the other can tend to focus on nothing being overly important because they are not going to live to see it anyway.

Both attitudes could be considered to be selfish, even that the belief systems seem diametrically opposed to each other.

Yet at the same time there are those who believe one way or the other and have great concerns about the Earth and are making efforts to nurture and preserve.

If an individual was neutral and didn’t believe one way or another but was equally comfortable with either dying and being no more or continuing on after the body dies, and focused their concern on the here and now and the logic of conserving the planet (and by that giving human beings optimum chance of continuing on) what exactly is neuroscience trying to achieve in mapping the brain and from that, with individuals such as yourself interpreting those maps to show that these show human consciousness does not survive...how would that be more advantageous than remaining neutral?

Bearing in mind that the examples you gave re what you would consider indications which the consciousness could show you that it is capable of functioning beyond the brain, it is very unlikely those examples could occur.

You say:

If consciousness can exist regardless of the brain, then the brain's standing shouldn't matter for the consciousness to make communication in test environments.
​

This may not be the case – consciousness within the living body might be restricted in this regard because it is not completely separate from the brain in that situation. How would you propose such a test environment could be set up where the consciousness could make such communication?

 

[Lorentz]

But he's talkin' 'bout Subconsciousness.

ETA: a rule of woo:

When you capitalize a word it can mean whatever you want it to mean.

Word, man. I mean, Word!

 

[JaysonR]

Well Jason, you haven’t addressed the idea that the brain induces these experiences (like OBE) because it understands that consciousness is going to continue.

I can't address that because that assumes the position that the brain knows that consciousness will continue, yet we haven't any material at this point that verifies this position.

If people want to believe that, then that's perfectly fine; I can't prove that either way. All I can account for is the lack of material evidence to support that idea so far.

I don’t accept that you mentioned ‘king’ in regard to consciousness in relation to ‘damaged brains’, unless you are simply stating that people who think ‘consciousness is king’ are brain damaged. Is that what you were inferring?

The "King" was a separate reference from brain damage.
"In spite" was in reference to potential brain damage.
"King" was in reference to the slang term for the left hemisphere for cognitive logic processing, and the bias for this section to consider "I" to be equal to only this region of processing.

Do you know if this is the same when someone believes in what is happening according to their observations (overt cognition) in relation to neurology?

For example, is your own bias (which you admit to) coming from the same section of that side of the brain and assigning importance or kingship to the brain?

If you decide something is so, do you do so in that region of the brain – then ‘it is so’ even if the other regions of your brain felt otherwise, or does this type of reasoning come from another region of the brain?

That's not the idea of what is meant by the slang of "King".
The bias is a bias of centralized identity; something we need to function.
However, we understand at this point that even though it is required to function, it is not actually the lone identity in the brain.

The term, and the concept of the bias, doesn't refer to an error in judging material evidence.
Weighing the judgement of material evidence has an entire different range of issues and presumptions to be aware of, and that is the reason why things like the scientific method were developed; because it aids in creating obstacles to assumptions our brains will inherently leap to so that careful deduction can be conducted.
This is similar to reading what has been written backwards for editing; because if you read something forward, your brain will assume what comes next and miss errors of what's actually there more often.
If you place a simple obstacle in the way for the brain's predictive capabilities by simply reading backwards, the brain is less capable of accidentally overlooking mistakes.

The scientific method aids investigation in much the same way.

I am thinking that the brain could be used as one thing where all areas of the brain are considered equal.

I am thinking it is possible to be more balanced and use both sides of the brain in a holistic manner, with no areas being ‘king’ over the rest.

Easily.
The left hemisphere isn't dominant to the point of atrophy of other regions in the average of humanity.
It is in some people, but not nearly in the average.
It works as it needs to, and anyone can do any number of mundane exercises to alter various regions of the brain.

For a simple example; any person can touch each finger to their thumb with both hands, and speak the same phonetic sound for each finger position every day for roughly 10 minutes and after a couple months, the right side thalamus will increase slightly in activity, as will the ventral system in the posterior of the brain.

what exactly is neuroscience trying to achieve in mapping the brain and from that, with individuals such as yourself interpreting those maps to show that these show human consciousness does not survive...how would that be more advantageous than remaining neutral?

Neuroscience, as a field, doesn't set out to prove one thing or another about "souls", "spirits" or "afterlives".

There's not even a method for testing those things, though many supporters of those ideas have tried to figure out a way to empirically prove these ideas using the scientific method to no real success.

For myself, I don't interpret the map of the brain to show that there's nothing but the physical; I don't see anything that requires being accounted for beyond it, and the brain reacts rather physically.
If I give someone a prefrontal lobotomy, then they will drop off from being emotional or having spirituality.
If I charge the angular gyrus, then the individual's perception of their spatial position will fire off in error and tell them that they are somewhere that they are not.
If I cut the connection between the fusiform gyrus and the amygdala, then the individual will lose emotional memory activation from seeing faces; possibly their own as well.
If I smash the back of the head, but don't hurt it beyond that, and manage to damage the posterior, then the individual won't be able to identify objects sitting right in front of them, but they will still be able to see the motion of objects.

How would you propose such a test environment could be set up where the consciousness could make such communication?

I have no idea.
We don't have a definition as to what consciousness is neurologically yet, so I can't determine what a test would look like for disembodied consciousness when we can't even determine consciousness embodied.

I was mostly answering the original question of what would be helpful in showing me that disembodied consciousness' exist; it would help if one of them would talk to a lab somewhere.

But I can't design a test for proving disembodied consciousness.
I can't do this because we can barely conceive of ways, so far, for testing consciousness in things that have bodies.

 

[Navigator]

I can't address that because that assumes the position that the brain knows that consciousness will continue, yet we haven't any material at this point that verifies this position.

If people want to believe that, then that's perfectly fine; I can't prove that either way. All I can account for is the lack of material evidence to support that idea so far.

Yes, and as is understood, ‘how to’ prove it either way is the central point. That there is no way discovered as yet on how to do this in no way signifies that this isn’t what might be occurring – in relation to the brain and consciousness and OBEs’

That is way I advocate the neutral position, while continuing studying what can be observed but laying aside opinions which encourage belief that what is being observed as being the likely, is not confused as being absolute truth.

It can be addressed in as much as to say ‘that is one possibility,’ of what may be occurring in what is being observed.
In doing so it does not signify it is believed.

Also, I think the brain damaged examples can give the impression that people who experience OBEs and other related phenomena somehow must have something wrong with their brains.

 

[JaysonR]

My general position is a mild skeptic.
That is; I retain the position that there is only that which is here and tangible until shown otherwise.
I can come up with ideas of how things might be, but they are no more than simply ideas of how things might be based on what we do know.

As to OBE's; it doesn't seem as likely to me for OBE's to be more than the angular gyrus being affected atypically (not due to damage; just normal "atypical", which means 'out of the ordinary') by comparison, to me, to what is a rather larger request for granting a few axioms on top of each other for the idea that OBE's represent consciousness disembodied.
When, in one hand, we can actively invoke OBE sensations using electrodes and meditation techniques which all affect the angular gyrus, and on the other we only have an explanation from experience and not measure.

For me; I expect those having the OBE to account for the experience sensationally and not measurably, but I can't take that account over proven measure which accounts for the same thing.

There is one way I thought of to test the idea of disembodied consciousness.
Even though we can't identify the constituents in the brain for consciousness, we do know that we can disrupt it with EM bursts to the skull.
If we take the position that states that the angular gyrus activates in a particular manner to facilitate the consciousness departing the body in a sort of transmitter type setup, then I would suppose that if consciousness could be disembodied and used the angular gyrus to power the broadcast of itself out, then, in theory, we should be able to measure some level of EM disruption in the surrounding air around the person since such would require transmission.

We should, in theory, then also be able to disrupt the broadcast if such were the case by using EM bursts to interfere with the frequency broadcast.

So, I would say one possible method of testing this idea would be to work on identifying if any frequency of EM is abnormal to the baseline during OBE invocation in a lab, and then if any frequency shows abnormality to the baseline, disrupt that frequency without stopping the electrode charge on the angular gyrus of the test subject and see if the OBE is abruptly stopped.

If all of that happened, then I think there might be a case for further investigation into OBE as a method of consciousness 'broadcasting'.

I'm not against concepts like consciousness disembodied, but if such exists, then it should abide by the known laws of physics, and we know consciousness is affected by EM since all brain activity is affected by EM and consciousness is within that environment and capable of restriction by such methods currently.
It seems, then, that that reliance on at least this level of physics could be used to test the idea of disembodied consciousness.

I think a positive result would indicate there was a means worth spending money on for pursuing the idea of disembodied consciousness in further inquiry.

I would also think that if nothing happened at all, that it would mean the idea of disembodied consciousness is incredibly unlikely, as the only method left would be by some "magical" method that isn't related to physical properties of the known universe.


As for damaged brains:
That a given behavior has been topographically identified through studying atypical neurologies does not therefore follow that everyone exhibiting the given behavior has some damage in their brain.
Damaged brains simply offer the easiest method for seeing what regions of the brain is related to what tasks by (mostly) studying two things: what typical skills are inhibited, and what atypical effects occur.

For instance, subjective capgras teaches us the importance of the fusiform gyrus and the amygdala in regards to facial identity recognition and acceptance, but it doesn't mean every human on the planet has a damaged brain when they see a person's face and recognize it correctly.
Instead, it simply shows us what regions of the brain are affected, and through inversion, we then know which regions are involved in the standard activity of facial recognition and identity acceptance.

 

[Navigator]

My general position is a mild skeptic.
That is; I retain the position that there is only that which is here and tangible until shown otherwise.
I can come up with ideas of how things might be, but they are no more than simply ideas of how things might be based on what we do know.

I have said nothing different. Simple ideas on what might possibly be happening.
Mind open. No particular bias one way or the other which could be a stumbling block. Explore. Remain neutral.

Acknowledging something as being a possibly answer is not giving any support to it over and above any other thing which might be possible.

 

[JaysonR]

I think there's a slight difference between our two approaches.
You more approach from accepting possibilities, while I approach skeptical of possibilities lacking null-hypothesis application, but permitting that such may still be possible; I just don't expect it to occur.

So I'm more doubtful, I would say.

 

[Navigator]

I think there's a slight difference between our two approaches.
You more approach from accepting possibilities, while I approach skeptical of possibilities lacking null-hypothesis application, but permitting that such may still be possible; I just don't expect it to occur.

So I'm more doubtful, I would say.

I think of doubt as being synonymous with belief. What causes doubt has to do with belief.
For example, if I doubt the word of someone trying to tell me over the phone that they need my personal details for whatever reason, it is my belief they are attempting to get those details in order to be fraudulent.

If I experience an OBE I do not doubt an explanation you might give which might explain what may have caused the experience, but I do not consider it the only explanation, or even the only plausible explanation.

If you were to try to convince me that your explanation was the only plausible explanation, I would doubt you and believe your bias was actually belief.

If there were no other possible explanations and I doubted you, it would be because of my bias was actually belief.

Bias and belief are cousins. They are related. Belief is bias which oversteps the line.