New Research Yields Insight Into The Origins Of Consciousness

#2
This study doesn't establish anything strikingly new at all. It has been theorized for some time that conscious awareness does not use one single part of the brain.

In addition, the following quote from the article:
The research suggests that consciousness is likely a product of this widespread communication
I dislike the use of the word product here, as this is still strongly an area of contention in consciousness studies (i.e. the well-known mind/body debate), and the article's author fails to recognize this by using the word product. Nobody knows right now whether the brain actually produces consciousness or if the brain serves as a conduit for consciousness, just like a radio serves as a conduit for a music broadcast. A radio also uses many different parts when playing a Mozart symphony.

Correlation is not causation.

My Best,
Bertha
 
#3
I agree. Using the word "product" seems to show their ignorance or even arrogance. Yep. It appears the brain is utilizing different regions in regards to consciousness. So, I guess we can all assume based on this bombshell that the brain actually produces it as well. Hurray! The "hard problem" is solved. Case closed.
 
#4
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/03/09/1414466112
These results provide compelling evidence that awareness is associated with truly global changes in the brain’s functional connectivity.

The article provides a good explaination of why residual electrical activity in the brain during cardiac arrest could not allow the brain to support consciousness necessary for an NDE. Everyone knows there are correlations between brain activity and mental states, any new bit of information about those correlations doesn't necessarily provide any greater evidence that the brain produces consciousness, it supports the filter model of the brain just as well. Overall, considering the other evidence from NDE studies, the article provides more support for the filter model than the production model.
 
Last edited:
#7
That article was hardly going to lead anywhere radical, since at the outset, it asked,
Is awareness the result of focused, specific changes in brain connectivity, or is it perhaps a product of a broad network of activity across the brain?
In other words, it was just a choice between two different brain-based theories.
 
#8
During the scan, the participants were asked to look out for a disk that briefly appeared on a screen. Participants were then asked whether they saw the image or not and how confident they were. Those who confidently spotted the disk were therefore categorized as “aware,” whereas the others fell into the unaware category. The scientists then compared members of each group to look for differences in brain activity. More specifically, they were looking at how different areas were communicating during awareness.
It always strikes me as odd how those studies are working. I mean its totally legit to do it that way since there propably isnt any other way to get any results at all, but is that anything else then "we record some brain signals and if something changed when the person said he/she spotted something its awareness. Hussa!". Its like listening to the motor of a car. When you accelerate it gets louder. It got louder right there on the left side of the motor. And bam, amazing results. Put the word consciousness in there and you'll get media attention. We are just listening to a black box there.
 
Top