New study linking brain activity to NDE's

[malf]

. But if it does act like a human, then how do we distinguish it from a simulation?

I may know a few people who would fail the Turing test tbh.

Heh... From the earliest years don't we all learn how to become human from the conditioning of the society that we're in? Mimicry certainly plays a part in that (one only has to observe toddlers to realise this). There is suggestion and expectation at play from day one.

 

[Typoz]

I may know a few people who would fail the Turing test tbh.

I guess this was a somewhat witty remark, But maybe it was totally serious. We can take an example from some of the discussions in this very forum.

Let's say someone makes an assertion. Then someone else points out that the assertion is both illogical and there is evidence which contradicts it. The person responds by mechanically repeating the same assertion in slightly different words, or by in effect cutting and pasting from some other source. This is what I'd call 'not thinking'. Thinking in the sense I mean can be difficult, it is problem-solving which involves exploring ideas and covering new ground. Staying rooted to the spot doesn't qualify.

 

[Arouet]

Science is about models that are descriptive and predictive.

Absolute proof happens in the environmental space of abstract math theory.

Right - not in scientific experiments, which is what we were talking about.

There is no sensible model from a "brain = mind and experience" paradigm. Without a model for how living things use understanding to purposefully shape real world probabilities to their favor it is flagrant hubris that there should be secure opinion that psi is supernatural And it is just not an example of a deeper-level natural understanding. There is nothing more than an assumption that understanding is a natural/physical process.

i don't think anyone has adequately modelled how mind works under any paradigm to date and I don't think anyone should be particular secure in their current leanings. I'm glad there are people studying the issue from different angles and approaches - that's healthy in a scientific system. Most attempts are going to lead to dead ends - but that's ok, and is part of the process as well. Lower quality, lower resource intensive preliminary experiments identify the ideas that are worth investing more resources in. Among the ones that advance most will still be dead ends but hopefully still give some insight. The ones that survive merit further and better quality - and more expensive - studies and hopefully we get to a point where we have results that can really provide some answers, etc. Even then, we should not suppose we have absolute confidence, and assume that there is some flaw in our understanding. This goes for most topics, not just parapsychology.

Parapsychology has some early results that in my opinion merit proceeding to more resource intensive, lower risk of bias studies. My post that you were responding to was arguing that until such studies are done, parapsychology will remain at the showing promise stage.

Based on parapsychological results, it is wrong to suggest psi has been falsified. It is also wrong to suggest that psi has been sufficiently and reliably (ie: NOT absolutely) demonstrated. At its best, parapsychology has some hypotheses that show promise, and may bear fruit. But we do no-one any favours by trying to present the work as more than that. It won't help parapsychology be accepted. Nor is it necessary. It is not an insult to parapsychology to reach this conclusion. It is the natural progression of scientific research.

 

[Max_B]

I guess this was a somewhat witty remark, But maybe it was totally serious. We can take an example from some of the discussions in this very forum.

Let's say someone makes an assertion. Then someone else points out that the assertion is both illogical and there is evidence which contradicts it. The person responds by mechanically repeating the same assertion in slightly different words, or by in effect cutting and pasting from some other source. This is what I'd call 'not thinking'. Thinking in the sense I mean can be difficult, it is problem-solving which involves exploring ideas and covering new ground. Staying rooted to the spot doesn't qualify.

Although it's probably an invalid classical approximation, I tend to observe that organisms that navigate 'space', have some part of themselves which exerts a force in the opposite direction to which they are moving.

As 'space' and 'time' are related to one another. I have considered whether something similar might take place in 'time' as well.

For example, for a snake or a worm to move forward in 'space', part of it must stay immobile... whilst another part moves forward.

Temporally speaking, it's interesting to consider whether an organism moving through time, requires that part of it stays intransigent, or resist change, whilst the rest of us explore alternative options up ahead in the future.

I have no idea whether it's valid, but I do find it a comforting thought that on some level the human race is like a single organism, and those who resist change, might be carrying out a vital function, that enables the rest of us to explore new options in the future.

 

[David Bailey]

"would you expect that you could interact with a robot for an extended period and not know it was one?" this is where there needs to be clarity in what it is that is being discussed. If we are to not know that it is a robot, then presumably we might mean perhaps that we are convinced that it is a human. But other possibilities exist. What if we accept that it is definitely not human - in effect an alien - then how would we expect an alien being to behave? If there is no attempt to simulate human characteristics, then we really don't have any yardstick against which to measure. I think that would make the task of deciding what was its nature impossible, if it doesn't act like a human, that's understandable, because we already know it's an alien. But if it does act like a human, then how do we distinguish it from a simulation?

I really can't think of any trivial test, certainly the Turing test is woefully inadequate, the only valid tests I think would be in just those areas where humans are distinct from machines, for example maybe we could try testing for psi, or precognition, or ganzfeld experiments, or telepathy, or mediumship ... Or perhaps try powering it down and see whether it reports hovering over its body and observing from above ...

My view is that everything we do is saturated with qualia. These aren't just there to make life more interesting for us - they are vital to the way we think! Given that, I really don't worry about situations in which it is hard to distinguish mind from non-mind, except for situations that are, in effect, rigged (maybe not consciously) by AI enthusiasts. Computers have always done things that could be presented as intelligence. Originally there was talk of "giant electronic brains" based on the fact that they could add up a column of figures rather faster than a human.

I also suspect that something akin to consciousness operates inside all life. The chemistry inside cells is extraordinary, but perhaps the real mystery is how it all gets coordinated. Rupert Sheldrake has an interesting example in which the lens of the eye of a tadpole is removed, and it re-forms using a different mechanism from that used to produce it originally. That tells me (and obviously Rupert) that something has to be able to get an overview of what is going on, and make corrections - even if the damage could never have happened outside of a lab. That means the detailed fixing mechanism could not possibly have evolved.

If I thought that AI could become so good that it could be confused with us, I would have to take seriously the idea that one more push would make an AI equivalent or better than us - as in SF - and I think that is very unlikely indeed.

David

 

[Typoz]

I think that qualia is certainly an important part of the picture. If we kick a dog and it yelps, we can have a reasonable idea of what it is experiencing. If we shout abuse at a computer and it bursts into tears, there's no reason to assume it is experiencing anything at all.

The discussion is mingling the ideas of consciousness and intelligence, but while one can argue that there is some overlap between these terms, they are clearly not synonyms. The talk of AI to me is somewhat of a distraction in that it is not addressing either the specific concept of qualia, nor the broader one of consciousness. In that sense I don't see even an imaginary future implementation of AI to be of any particular potency, any more than a machine which can jump higher than a man or travel faster than a man would be. Machine implementations of certain human capabilities have been going on ever since the invention of the first machine (often said to be the lever) but we don't ever feel that these machines are like ourselves, nor do I consider that an AI machine would be like ourselves.

 

[Pollux]

Let's say someone makes an assertion. Then someone else points out that the assertion is both illogical and there is evidence which contradicts it. The person responds by mechanically repeating the same assertion in slightly different words, or by in effect cutting and pasting from some other source. This is what I'd call 'not thinking'. .

He could quote Walt Whitman;

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes."

;)

 

[Stephen Wright]

Right - not in scientific experiments, which is what we were talking about. i don't think anyone has adequately modeled how mind works under any paradigm to date and I don't think anyone should be particular secure in their current leanings.

Parapsychology has some early results that in my opinion merit proceeding to more resource intensive, lower risk of bias studies. My post that you were responding to was arguing that until such studies are done, parapsychology will remain at the showing promise stage.

Scientific experiments are data-gathering, which imports natural patterns. From these data patterns are created models of processes. They can, on an abstract level, be computationally tested and try to have output that matches the patterns. The secondary process of data analysis is more of a logical than physical process, as the data is used to support a scientific model of a process or processes in a system.

Experimental research from natural events is said to be modeled correctly when predictive abstract computation matches closely. This is especially true when the known and measured variables can be shown that each individually have predictive results within a systemic model. Quantum theory, as a predictive model is the gold-standard of this. Yet - its is called weird, because it produces natural phenomena that are not logical to a solely physical-based reality.

Yet, no such problems arise in information theory which is probabilistic at its core. My point - which I hope will get acknowledged - is the difference between psychology, the study of behavioral data about mental activity is ok when a brain is physical - but is demeaned as parapsychology, which may be based on informational events that occur without a reason.

We accept the data from quantum experiments because there are "physical' units of measure. The current paradigm protects itself by calling the obvious analysis indicating a probabilistic reality -- weird.

I suggest again, that mental understanding is natural and not modeled by physical theory because of a deep-seeded belief that information is not real. Really - isn't it obvious - that quantum theory is only weird from a perspective of physicalism!!! In the two-slit experiment when the light pattern changes, when information is exported from a system, is simply a result of the changed real-world probabilities of structuring the information into a new pattern. To me - one should expect the light pattern to change -with the change in the real -world information, and its not weird at all.

Understanding by living things is an information process that eludes a physicalistic answer. Since understanding is an informational process - why shouldn't the answer be an information-based one. So, just as physics is made "unweird" by accepting information as a real-world counterpart of physical presence - the para will disappear from para-normal or para-psychology. Events can be just real-world data - even when regarding information transfer without a physical signal.

 

[Arouet]

Scientific experiments are data-gathering, which imports natural patterns. From these data patterns are created models of processes. They can, on an abstract level, be computationally tested and try to have output that matches the patterns. The secondary process of data analysis is more of a logical than physical process, as the data is used to support a scientific model of a process or processes in a system.

Experimental research from natural events is said to be modeled correctly when predictive abstract computation matches closely. This is especially true when the known and measured variables can be shown that each individually have predictive results within a systemic model. Quantum theory, as a predictive model is the gold-standard of this. Yet - its is called weird, because it produces natural phenomena that are not logical to a solely physical-based reality.

Yet, no such problems arise in information theory which is probabilistic at its core. My point - which I hope will get acknowledged - is the difference between psychology, the study of behavioral data about mental activity is ok when a brain is physical - but is demeaned as parapsychology, which may be based on informational events that occur without a reason.

We accept the data from quantum experiments because there are "physical' units of measure. The current paradigm protects itself by calling the obvious analysis indicating a probabilistic reality -- weird.

I suggest again, that mental understanding is natural and not modeled by physical theory because of a deep-seeded belief that information is not real. Really - isn't it obvious - that quantum theory is only weird from a perspective of physicalism!!! In the two-slit experiment when the light pattern changes, when information is exported from a system, is simply a result of the changed real-world probabilities of structuring the information into a new pattern. To me - one should expect the light pattern to change -with the change in the real -world information, and its not weird at all.

Understanding by living things is an information process that eludes a physicalistic answer. Since understanding is an informational process - why shouldn't the answer be an information-based one. So, just as physics is made "unweird" by accepting information as a real-world counterpart of physical presence - the para will disappear from para-normal or para-psychology. Events can be just real-world data - even when regarding information transfer without a physical signal.

I'm just heading out, just had time to skim this - I'm not sure I understand your post enough to opine one way or the other. Our exchange began when you had seemed to be responding to a point of mine, disagreeing with me, but I don't think I said anything related to what you're bringing up in your post. Just want to make sure I correctly understand that you've moved onto a different topic rather than taking an issue with what I posted.

If your post was meant to relate to mine, I'm afraid I don't understand and would ask you to clarify.

 

[Richard Still]

I'm still around, I have been reading papers, as recommended by several people here :)

 

[Stephen Wright]

I'm not sure I understand your post enough to opine one way or the other. Our exchange began when you had seemed to be responding to a point of mine, disagreeing with me, but I don't think I said anything related to what you're bringing up in your post. Just want to make sure I correctly understand that you've moved onto a different topic rather than taking an issue with what I posted.

If your post was meant to relate to mine, I'm afraid I don't understand and would ask you to clarify. and in a prior post "Parapsychology has some early results that in my opinion merit proceeding to more resource intensive, lower risk of bias studies. My post that you were responding to was arguing that until such studies are done, parapsychology will remain at the showing promise stage."

Arouet,

I am trying to take you and others out of their comfort zone and reveal your position as cast in politics rather than logic. Psychology is a field of science with documented observations. However, it does not have reductive basis in physics. It is the observations of mental behavior and relies on neuroscience and not on mechanics. How "understanding" (a fundamental process in mental output) is modeled in terms of neural correlates has eluded the the analysis side of science, which excludes "para-data" for metaphysical reasons. I have been making the point, without acknowledgement, that there are at least two steps in science - one is data-gathering and the other analysis. The term "para" psychology is just a political b.s. to make some observations not count.

I find the papers referenced in the opening post from Chawala et all and Borjigin et all - good research and excellent pragmatic science. One investigator finds at near-death, a brief outburst of signals from asphyxia, as electrical activity. And the other author, an outburst of chemical signals to the heart. This is data gathering at its best. They note, with this new observation, that these chemical signals harm the heart's ability to recover. In this fashion, chemistry can be used to help the heart not give-out as soon as our natural body functions dictate. This is good and practical analysis.

Then the assertion and conjecture is made that these outbursts may be related to hallucination, from the noise of the signals, and explain an NDE experience. This is analysis work at its worst. It is gains attention for the authors, but is in my humble opinion, a ridiculous analysis and is a blatant marketing ploy.

Why would evolution evolve a biological response that harms the heart? Biological evolution as telenomic processes does not waste biochemistry that hurts survival potential, without a trade-off benefit.

If they did recall that electrical surge, we hypothesize and speculate that that could be what people describe in their near-death experiences. The one thing that we’ve seen rather consistently when you read the literature of near-death experiences is that not everyone has the same imagery. Not everyone has the same experience.

But the one thing that they all have in common is that the experience is very intense and very vivid. People can usually recall many, many years later on with great detail what they experienced. So it would take something that would be a very durable electrical event of energy for someone to have that. So we put those notions together and arrived at that speculation. - Dr. Lakhmir Chawla

What!!!! Durable events from intense electrical activity are remembered as PAIN. They are meaningless signals and damage nervous systems (including the heart-brain, as they find). What is actually recalled from NDE's are deep-meanings from understanding one's personal life objectively. The point in my prior posts - that I must have made poorly - is that the process of any understanding is not modeled with comprehension in the brain = mind context.

My other point is that it is the ignoring (or ignorance) of information science that is at the bottom of all this. I point out that quantum effects are "weird" to physicalism, but sensible in informational realism. This state of affairs in physics is parallel to the SoA in cognitive science where claims are made about brains states leading to weird explanations of understanding, when understanding is an informational processes occurring within a different environmental SoA.

Neuroscience is about how the brain processes information - 1.3 in the book subtitled Probabilistic Approaches to Neural Coding

There is no such thing as "para", except in the politics of materialism that makes data-gathering of mental states, at near-death, less than any other natural data. The data gathering is just data-gathering in the same scientific field and the para-psychology tag is simply childish name calling. There is no promises being made - only observations that have yet to be yield an integrated process model that is explanatory. I think this model is much closer than many think, if information science is left to lead the field. Physics explaining mental algorithms - is a square peg into a round hole.

 

[Chris]

I may know a few people who would fail the Turing test tbh.

I sometimes think a large proportion of people who work in call centres would.

 

[Richard Still]

That means the detailed fixing mechanism could not possibly have evolved.

This is a jump from, "I don't know how this could happen" to "No one, ever, will be smart enough to figure this out how this could happen".

 

[Richard Still]

I have been making the point, without acknowledgement, that there are at least two steps in science - one is data-gathering and the other analysis. The term "para" psychology is just a political b.s. to make some observations not count.

Not count?
I don't see that happening. It is more that anomalies appear, if they occur often enough that they are empirically measurable, then someone, somewhere is going to have enough interest in figuring out the reason why. What I do see happening is that some people are taking the 'I don't know' and trying to stuff as much as they can into that vacuum.
The 'para' is because the claim of is essentially negative, "something that cannot be explained by current models and understanding". When psi makes it up on the big board, the 'para' will go away on its own.

I find the papers referenced in the opening post from Chawala et all and Borjigin et all - good research and excellent pragmatic science. One investigator finds at near-death, a brief outburst of signals from asphyxia, as electrical activity. And the other author, an outburst of chemical signals to the heart. This is data gathering at its best. They note, with this new observation, that these chemical signals harm the heart's ability to recover. In this fashion, chemistry can be used to help the heart not give-out as soon as our natural body functions dictate. This is good and practical analysis.

Then the assertion and conjecture is made that these outbursts may be related to hallucination, from the noise of the signals, and explain an NDE experience. This is analysis work at its worst. It is gains attention for the authors, but is in my humble opinion, a ridiculous analysis and is a blatant marketing ploy.

Yeah, that was a step too far. They should have just stopped at their empirical findings and maybe suggested avenues for future research. They should not have made claims beyond their data. I totally agree with that view.

My other point is that it is the ignoring (or ignorance) of information science that is at the bottom of all this. I point out that quantum effects are "weird" to physicalism, but sensible in informational realism. This state of affairs in physics is parallel to the SoA in cognitive science where claims are made about brains states leading to weird explanations of understanding, when understanding is an informational processes occurring within a different environmental SoA.

What we interpret and interact with in our normal, day to day, life is normal matter at the bottom of a gravity well. That is what our minds have evolved to deal with. Calling quantum mechanics 'weird' is just a way of saying that our instinctive modeling of the world does not map down into the sub atomic scale. The sub atomic scale IS knowable and measurable and testable empirically. It seems that you are trying to map a false dichotomy onto another situation where you would very much like just such a dichotomy to exist.

Physics explaining mental algorithms - is a square peg into a round hole.

Before Darwin, we could not explain how animals and trees (life) could look so darn complicated without a designer. He described a process that would allow this to happen, no designer required. No physical laws violated, either.
It seems that you want to say that some phenomenon, which can't be explained currently, are the result of a mind-brain separation and that physics just don't apply to consciousness. I think that physics still works, even in your mind.

 

[fls]

Yeah, that was a step too far. They should have just stopped at their empirical findings and maybe suggested avenues for future research. They should not have made claims beyond their data. I totally agree with that view.

People who have not read the paper may have a mis-impression of the hypotheses tested. The authors tested the claims they made about the potential relationship between the findings and experiences like NDEs. That is, rather than making claims beyond their data, these were their claims which were tested by the data. These findings seem to have progressed the field more in the last two years than in the 30 years preceding, with respect to key assumptions about the potential 'paranormal' nature of the experiences.

Linda

 

[Stephen Wright]

People who have not read the paper may have a mis-impression of the hypotheses tested. The authors tested the claims they made about the potential relationship between the findings and experiences like NDEs. That is, rather than making claims beyond their data, these were their claims which were tested by the data. These findings seem to have progressed the field more in the last two years than in the 30 years preceding, with respect to key assumptions about the potential 'paranormal' nature of the experiences.

Linda

I think this is nothing but spin. The testing was about the ability of the heart to recover from asphyxia! The very idea that it was empirical research with a non-empirical claim of NDE makes no sense.

That near death is being researched and valuable biological information has been gained by data-gathering is excellent and highly valuable.

That data-analysis addressing a political claim is being hyped is terrible. And it is very poor work at that. What is para about the data??

 

[fls]

I think this is nothing but spin. The testing was about the ability of the heart to recover from asphyxia! The very idea that it was empirical research with a non-empirical claim of NDE makes no sense.

This is incorrect. Please consider reading the full research paper.

Linda

 

[Max_B]

Even though Linda is incorrectly trying to spin Borgijin's work, there is no getting away from the implications of the first study...

1. People who recall NDE's following resusitation from cardiac arrest, could only have done so, if they had generally avoided major brain damage from cell death. The assumption must be that during their period of cardiac arrest, patients brain cells generally had sufficient energy available to avoid damage.

2. Borgijin's research shows highly syncronised brain activity well into the period of cardiac arrest.

Put 1. together with 2. and there is no getting away from the implication that patients who recall NDE's potentially had similar syncronised activity, and sufficient cellular energy to avoid brain damage.

Borgijins research tells us this is happening, but tells us nothing about why?

Why for gods sake would a rat's brains EM field... some 17 seconds into cardiac arrest... suddenly begin to resemble a wakeful humans EM field who is undertaking a visual task.

We won't be able to answer this, until researchers have at least ruled out one possibility... By totally shielding the rats brains from all EM fields, including slowly varying magnetic fields... Which Borgijin has not done so far...

Until that is done, we're not going to truly be sure why rats brains (and probably humans) apparently can become more conscious during cardiac arrest then when they are in their usual wakeful state.

 

[Stephen Wright]

This is incorrect. Please consider reading the full research paper.

Linda

Please cite something from the paper that is supportive of their analytic analysis - please!

But the new study shows even after a person’s heart stops beating, and loses consciousness and no signs of life, the brain continues to be active — flooding the heart with signals, probably in a desperate attempt to save the organ.

you have to sever [the chemical communication between] the brain and heart in order to save the heart," Borjigin toldLiveScience, adding that the finding is "contrary to almost all emergency medical practice." That brain activity may account for the near-death experiences some people report, Borjigin said.

Life and death biological processes take place subconsciously and are driven by ancient physical biological processes. What is terms of evolutionary development would drive a process that needs consciousness of heart-felt life experiences. Further, in terms of survival of the fittest - what in terms of evolutionary development would cause the selection of a biological response that lowers the chance of survival?

Borigin admits the problem! --

Blocking the brain’s autonomic outflow significantly delayed terminal ventricular fibrillation and lengthened the duration of detectable cortical activities despite the continued absence of oxygen. These results demonstrate that asphyxia activates a brainstorm, which accelerates premature death of the heart and the brain.

High-frequency neurophysiological activity in the near-death state exceeded levels found during the conscious waking state. These data demonstrate that the mammalian brain can, albeit paradoxically, generate neural correlates of heightened conscious processing at near-death. Jimo Borjigin, Michael M. Wang, and George A. Mashour

Reply to Chawla and Seneff

A brainstorm of signals results in hallucination or memory loss. -- This is the antithesis of the presentation of an NDE; where deep-meaning and long-term character development are core experiences!! The conjecture that a noisy but powerful signal - causes heightened objective analysis and the generation of semantic meaning is very, very paradoxical (or maybe just plain not rational thinking).

NDEs are about semantic information and not about shock therapy, designed for wiping out ocd habits or memories of past traumatic experience. In terms of G. Tonini's measurement of Phi -- an NDE is an off-chart conscious experience of integrated information. In science - using the correct units of measure is needed to make a valid point when reviewing the data. We are talking the difference between amps and deep understanding of personal emotional reality. A flow of electrons does not equal a generation of meaningful symbolic representations.

 

[fls]

Please cite something from the paper that is supportive of their analytic analysis - please!

This is covered in detail in their paper.

What is terms of evolutionary development would drive a process that needs consciousness of heart-felt life experiences. Further, in terms of survival of the fittest - what in terms of evolutionary development would cause the selection of a biological response that lowers the chance of survival?

It's not clear that it lowers survival. It may increase survival overall, in much the same way that the mechanisms which lead to 'shock' are beneficial in most cases. Until they aren't.

Borigin admits the problem! --

A brainstorm of signals results in hallucination or memory loss. -- This is the antithesis of the presentation of an NDE; where deep-meaning and long-term character development are core experiences!! The conjecture that a noisy but powerful signal - causes heightened objective analysis and the generation of semantic meaning is very, very paradoxical (or maybe just plain not rational thinking).

You may have a mistaken idea of hallucinations, and of the experiences taking place near death, in addition to not realizing what Borgijin et. al. actually found. Hallucinations can also be meaningful and detailed, the experiences taking place near death are not generally meaningful or transformative or distinguishable from those we regard as "hallucinations", and Borgijin found, not a noisy signal, but one showing increased coherence and connectivity.

Linda