Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Consciousness

Consciousness
(02-17-2020, 08:55 PM)Free Wrote: I tend to see things this way;

1. External stimuli creates a memory, which some memories leaving more of a mark than others depending on the emotional impact.

2. With each memory that is created, also ingrained within it are all our conscious thoughts and processes regarding it.

3. When the memory is invoked, all previous thoughts and processes are invoked along with it, and it thereby becomes a reaction.

4. Is there actually any evidence that any "new" information is being created and subconsciously processed when memories are invoked?

Here are a few points from post #162 bearing on what you said, from the book Memory: A Very Short Introduction by Professor Jonathan Foster.  I have placed numbers before each bit to refer to the specific points you raised.

Without memory, “we would be unable to speak, read, identify objects, navigate our way around our environment, or maintain personal relationships.”  As Michael Gazzaniga said, “Everything in life is memory, save for the thin edge of the present.”  We see the influences of memories in our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

1. Memory is not passive, it is continually modified as we integrate new information into old memories.  So memory is essential reconstructive as opposed to reproductive.  It involves top-down interpretations as well as bottom-up inputs of information.  It depends on our assumptions, interests, motivations, and emotional reactions.  Memory is similar to how a paleontologist “constructs a dinosaur from an incomplete set of bones.”  This is why memories can be unreliable, and why accounts differ between people, or even from the same person at different times.

2. “The terms ‘working memory’ and ‘short-term memory’ are also often used synonymously with consciousness.”  New items displace old items [in short-term memory].  Long-term memory is created by paying attention and by rehersal, and seems to have an unlimited capacity.  The information is stored primarily by meanings, but the top-down imposition of meanings “can often lead to distortions and biases in memory.” 

2. Long-term memories are stored in different ways.  Episodic memories are recollections of times, places, and emotions.  Sematic memories are of our general knowledge.  Episodic memories tend to be processed into sematic memories over time, as more, similar-type experiences are processed and associated together in groups.  We also store procedural memories, like how to ride a bike, which are “independent of consciously accessible memory.”

3. Memories do tend to fade with time, but can also be “disrupted, obscured or overlaid by other memories.”  Flashbulb memories and those memories we reminisce about tend to remain vivid, especially those from adolescence and early adulthood.  However, sematic memories tend to intrude on them.  We build up “schemas” for typical experiences, which help us interrelate details of various memories.  “Expectations provide schemas that can either facilitate or mislead with respect to our memory functioning” since “we filter out what is inconsistent” with our schemas.

3. Since our memories are reconstructed from bits and pieces plus our semantic knowledge, our memories become blurred with what is imagined or suggested.  Although real memories tend to be more vivid and detailed, “there is no completely reliable way to distinguishing between ‘real’ and ‘imagined’ memories.”  This is why eyewitness accounts are often so unreliable.  Our memories are biased “to be consistent with our general world view.”  Both “recovered” and false memories can be created after the fact.  “Although people may remember corrections to earlier misinformation, they may nevertheless continue to rely on the discredited information.” 

4. There are also both explicit (conscious) and implicit memories.  The latter may affect behaviors “without conscious recollection of the original events.”  These are demonstrated by priming studies, in which people are fed information without their registering it and as a result change their subsequent behaviors measurably.  For instance, the exposure effect makes certain things more attractive by mere exposure.  This is how commercials work.

In other words, the picture of memory which scientists have built up in their research is much more complicated.  Different kinds of memory systems are involved, processing memories in different ways.  And we can potentially alter our memories each time we think about them, or make new connections between them and other experiences.
Reply

Consciousness
(02-17-2020, 09:56 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 08:55 PM)Free Wrote: I tend to see things this way;

1. External stimuli creates a memory, which some memories leaving more of a mark than others depending on the emotional impact.

2. With each memory that is created, also ingrained within it are all our conscious thoughts and processes regarding it.

3. When the memory is invoked, all previous thoughts and processes are invoked along with it, and it thereby becomes a reaction.

4. Is there actually any evidence that any "new" information is being created and subconsciously processed when memories are invoked?

Here are a few points from post #162 bearing on what you said, from the book Memory: A Very Short Introduction by Professor Jonathan Foster.  I have placed numbers before each bit to refer to the specific points you raised.

Without memory, “we would be unable to speak, read, identify objects, navigate our way around our environment, or maintain personal relationships.”  As Michael Gazzaniga said, “Everything in life is memory, save for the thin edge of the present.”  We see the influences of memories in our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

1. Memory is not passive, it is continually modified as we integrate new information into old memories.  So memory is essential reconstructive as opposed to reproductive.  It involves top-down interpretations as well as bottom-up inputs of information.  It depends on our assumptions, interests, motivations, and emotional reactions.  Memory is similar to how a paleontologist “constructs a dinosaur from an incomplete set of bones.”  This is why memories can be unreliable, and why accounts differ between people, or even from the same person at different times.

2. “The terms ‘working memory’ and ‘short-term memory’ are also often used synonymously with consciousness.”  New items displace old items [in short-term memory].  Long-term memory is created by paying attention and by rehersal, and seems to have an unlimited capacity.  The information is stored primarily by meanings, but the top-down imposition of meanings “can often lead to distortions and biases in memory.” 

2. Long-term memories are stored in different ways.  Episodic memories are recollections of times, places, and emotions.  Sematic memories are of our general knowledge.  Episodic memories tend to be processed into sematic memories over time, as more, similar-type experiences are processed and associated together in groups.  We also store procedural memories, like how to ride a bike, which are “independent of consciously accessible memory.”

3. Memories do tend to fade with time, but can also be “disrupted, obscured or overlaid by other memories.”  Flashbulb memories and those memories we reminisce about tend to remain vivid, especially those from adolescence and early adulthood.  However, sematic memories tend to intrude on them.  We build up “schemas” for typical experiences, which help us interrelate details of various memories.  “Expectations provide schemas that can either facilitate or mislead with respect to our memory functioning” since “we filter out what is inconsistent” with our schemas.

3. Since our memories are reconstructed from bits and pieces plus our semantic knowledge, our memories become blurred with what is imagined or suggested.  Although real memories tend to be more vivid and detailed, “there is no completely reliable way to distinguishing between ‘real’ and ‘imagined’ memories.”  This is why eyewitness accounts are often so unreliable.  Our memories are biased “to be consistent with our general world view.”  Both “recovered” and false memories can be created after the fact.  “Although people may remember corrections to earlier misinformation, they may nevertheless continue to rely on the discredited information.” 

4. There are also both explicit (conscious) and implicit memories.  The latter may affect behaviors “without conscious recollection of the original events.”  These are demonstrated by priming studies, in which people are fed information without their registering it and as a result change their subsequent behaviors measurably.  For instance, the exposure effect makes certain things more attractive by mere exposure.  This is how commercials work.

In other words, the picture of memory which scientists have built up in their research is much more complicated.  Different kinds of memory systems are involved, processing memories in different ways.  And we can potentially alter our memories each time we think about them, or make new connections between them and other experiences.

So, in a nutshell this seems to be saying that we can store a memory, and as new information passes through our consciousness it can affect the previously stored memory and change it's parameters, thus possibly creating a false *imagined* memory? Am I understanding this correctly?

If so, that's very reasonable and easy to understand. But even so, even the altered/imagined memories would have been altered by new input of information that we were consciously aware of to some degree, with perhaps an exception being that in a dream state we can also alter memories or manufacture them unconsciously.

But my original point does not yet seem to have been eliminated in which all information stored in memory is being altered subconsciously and resulting in our decision making not being (at least in some part) a conscious decision.
Welcome to the Atheist Forums on AtheistDiscussion.org
The following 1 user Likes Free's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(02-17-2020, 08:04 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 06:44 AM)DLJ Wrote: You are referring to Change Enablement methodology, (specifically the difference between a 'normal' change and a 'standard' change) and its interrelationship with Configuration Management / Asset Management methodology (which holds the baseline i.e. memory).

Flow diagrams available on request.

I think it's very interesting that you find so many parallels between management techniques and how the brain works, ...

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Big Grin
Philosophy is about asking questions.
Science is about answering questions.
Theology is about avoiding questions.
Reply

Consciousness
(02-17-2020, 10:35 PM)Free Wrote: But even so, even the altered/imagined memories would have been altered by new input of information that we were consciously aware of to some degree, with perhaps an exception being that in a dream state we can also alter memories or manufacture them unconsciously.

My answer to point 4 was that researchers have found that information is picked up which isn't consciously registered at the time, but which still can affect our judgments and behaviors.  They have created experiments which uphold that observation.  The extent of that influence is subject to debate.

In addition, our ability to create new memories is largely compromised during dreaming.  That is why we typically can't remember even vivid dreams unless we reiterate them to ourselves immediately after waking.  That makes the processing of new memories or the altering of old ones unlikely in dreaming.

(02-17-2020, 10:35 PM)Free Wrote: But my original point does not yet seem to have been eliminated in which all information stored in memory is being altered subconsciously and resulting in our decision making not being (at least in some part) a conscious decision.

Some information is altered subconsciously and that affects conscious decision-making to whatever extent.  Whether all information is reprocessed subconsciously or not is a matter of dispute, but certainly memories are recast to support our assumptions and expectations.  We are constantly talking to ourselves about our experiences, and that reorganizes them.  Is that conscious or subconscious activity?  Most of it seems conscious to me.

But I thought your original point was the opposite.  Perhaps you could clarify this for me.
Reply

Consciousness
(02-17-2020, 08:04 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(02-17-2020, 06:44 AM)DLJ Wrote: You are referring to Change Enablement methodology, (specifically the difference between a 'normal' change and a 'standard' change) and its interrelationship with Configuration Management / Asset Management methodology (which holds the baseline i.e. memory).

Flow diagrams available on request.

I think it's very interesting that you find so many parallels between management techniques and how the brain works, but you use terminlogy with which I am unfamilair.  Although flow diagrams might be helpful, I think what I really need to see are translations of your management terminology into the parallel concepts of brain science -- "Y is like X in that it does Z" or whatever.  That way I might be able to better translate both your contributions and your flow diagrams.

Or if that is too much to ask, then perhaps you could offer some basic definitions.  What is Change Enablement?  What are Configuration Management and Asset Management?  And so on.

The parallels start to become obvious once one looks at the 'mind/body problem' through the lens of the relationship between a corporation (corpus/body) and its information systems.  Thus, not just "how the brain works" but also everything to do with information processing (both internally generated data and externally received data).

From this we can move away from the notion of a 'calculator-brain' and instead think in terms of systems and services.  

Add to this the notion that the human phenotypic machine has evolved to be social then it's a small step to see that human value relates not just 'production', as Marx taught us, but also to the 'services' we provide to each other.  Therefore, we are service providers; and suddenly all the thinking tools that are available to service provider organisations are open to us as individuals.  

From this the answer to questions like "How do we get life from non-life?" become almost trivial. 

But yes, it does need quite a bit of translation.  I'm working on that.

A quick version:

An organisation has assets (which may or may not be in use) which it values (as do individuals).  A subset of those assets are in use in relationship to other assets that are in use and these are referred to as a configuration; which creates a baseline. 

"1+1=2" would be an information-asset i.e. one of many bits of information forming a 'belief-baseline' (until some smart-arse comes along and teaches us about base 2).

Change enablement (used to be called Change Management in the text books up until recently) is the practice by which we modify this baseline i.e. add new stuff / take away old stuff. There is a 'normal' change which has to be planned, assessed, tested, authorised etc. and a 'standard' change which is something we've done a few times before so gets pre-authorised (done without much conscious thought) and eventually automated.

So, "1+1=2" is the baseline, uploaded into our neck-tops at an early age.
"1+1=10" is something we might think is weird and gets rejected until we modify our thinking tools to incorporate the idea of base 2. 
Once we've modified our cognitive lenses and filters to accept the concept of base 2, then seeing "1+1=10" is not something we would notice consciously. 

Asset value is also a key aspect of things like 'risk' and 'prioritisation'.  Not difficult to see how those elements relate to consciousness (i.e. awareness / alertness), I think.
The following 1 user Likes DLJ's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(02-17-2020, 08:55 PM)Free Wrote: ...Is there actually any evidence that any "new" information is being created and subconsciously processed when memories are invoked?

I believe so.  I live near the Ninety Mile Beach in Victoria, which runs in a dead straight line
for (unsurprisingly!) 90 miles.  I've also visited Wineglass Bay, in Tasmania, which is shaped
like a wine glass...

[Image: Wineglass-Bay-and-The-Hazards-Blog-Main-Image.jpg]

As soon as I saw it, its appearance matched exactly with the Ninety Mile beach—drawn from
one established memory—except for one major difference... their respective shapes.  
So, the topography of Wineglass Bay is now lodged in my memory banks as a new piece of
data, such that if someone mentions it by name, I don't initially dredge up the memory of
the Ninety Mile Beach, but rather this new bit of data.

And before I'd seen Wineglass Bay, I obviously had no notion of what it looked like—its defining
data just wasn't there in my memory.    So yes; this was the creation of "new" information.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply

Consciousness
(02-18-2020, 01:52 PM)DLJ Wrote: The parallels start to become obvious once one looks at the 'mind/body problem' through the lens of the relationship between a corporation (corpus/body) and its information systems.  Thus, not just "how the brain works" but also everything to do with information processing (both internally generated data and externally received data).

From this we can move away from the notion of a 'calculator-brain' and instead think in terms of systems and services.  

Add to this the notion that the human phenotypic machine has evolved to be social then it's a small step to see that human value relates not just 'production', as Marx taught us, but also to the 'services' we provide to each other.  Therefore, we are service providers; and suddenly all the thinking tools that are available to service provider organisations are open to us as individuals.  

From this the answer to questions like "How do we get life from non-life?" become almost trivial. 

But yes, it does need quite a bit of translation.  I'm working on that.

I think your parallels are very interesting, especially considering not only social relationships but relationships between groups of cells providing different services within a body.  I want to understand this angle better, since it obviously relates to my present obsession with consciousness.

However, there's obviously a lot of unfamiliar information and terminology for me to absorb to understand those parallels.  Can you recommend a couple books which you think cover many of the basics?
Reply

Consciousness
(02-19-2020, 02:00 PM)Alan V Wrote: ...
  Can you recommend a couple books which you think cover many of the basics?

I'll recommend IT Service Management (ITIL) which is currently on version 4 (2019)
The version 3.1 handbook (2011) might be an easier read.

Older versions are probably available for free somewhere.

As you read them, think of:
IT as the mind (information items, information flows and the systems that support it e.g. neurons; the immune system etc.) 
Service Provider as you
Services as what you do that produces value to your customers
Customers as the people or groups who matter to you e.g. family
Business as 'busyness' in that being busy is a fundamental of being alive


The trick is to try to think of an organisation as an organism. 

My premise is this:  
That rather than trying to map e.g. life or free will or consciousness directly onto neurology it might be useful to create an interim model (a model human / human model) to link the manifest world to the physical world.

E.g.
Value(s) <--> Service Model <--> Components

The above mentioned ITIL is not the only one I'm using but it might be good primer.

Good luck.
The following 2 users Like DLJ's post:
  • Dānu, Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
This is my short summary of points from Consciousness and the Brain: Deciphering How the Brain Codes Our Thoughts by Stanislas Dehaene, professor of experimental cognitive psychology at the College de France, published by Penguin Books in 2014. It is one of the better books I have read so far.

Introduction:
“Cognitive science, neurophysiology, and brain imaging have mounted a solid empirical attack on consciousness.” Scientists have developed better definitions of aspects of consciousness, various ways which consciousness can be experimentally manipulated, and a respect for subjective reports as data. Behaviorism conflated introspection as raw data with introspection as a research method, and so threw out the baby with the bathwater. Introspection is not a good method, since “by definition, we have no access to our many unconscious processes.”

Different aspects of consciousness:
The subcortical conscious state (sleep, dreaming, waking).
Cortical/thalamic vigilance.
Attention, which is focusing on specific information. “Attention’s sieve operates largely unconsciously – attention is dissociable from conscious access.”
Phenomenal awareness, which equals qualia.
Conscious access, which is the information which enters awareness (genuine consciousness). “At any given time, a massive flow of sensory stimulation reaches our senses, but our conscious mind seems to gain access to only a very small amount of it.” While its potential repertoire is vast, at any given moment its actual repertoire is dramatically limited. It must withdraw from one item in order to gain access to another. Subcortical wakefulness, cortical/thalamic vigilance, and attention “are just enabling conditions for conscious access.” Scientists can study conscious access through a variety of methods, which the book details.

Approach:
Cognitive scientists have discovered how to manipulate consciousness in many ways, by identifying and using different threshold conditions between unconscious processing and conscious perception. For instance, they can flash different pictures into each eye and monitor unconscious processing in such a way that demonstrates both pictures are processed. Yet conscious access switches from one to another and back again. So “an objectively fixed visual display can pop in and out of our subjective awareness, more or less at random. This profound observation forms the basis of the modern science of consciousness.” “The experimental strategy of creating a minimal contrast between conscious and unconscious perception was the key idea that cracked wide open the doors to the supposedly inaccessible santuary of consciousness.” By focusing on conscious access, manipulating conscious perception, and recording introspective reports, scientists have “transformed the study of consciousness into a normal experimental science.”

Methods:
1) Scientists have focused on conscious access. This requires no elaborate notion of consciousness, just perceiving or not perceiving.
2) They have used “a panoply of tricks to manipulate consciousness at will,” including many illusions which appear and disappear – “words, pictures, sounds, and even gorillas.” For instance, if an image is available for only 40 milliseconds, it remains invisible. At 60 milliseconds, it is visible. At 50 milliseconds, it is perceived about half the time. Stimuli can be flashed at different speeds and hidden by attentional blink, masking, and other methods as well.
3) By “treating subjective reports as genuine scientific data” scientists have used subjective experiences to create reproducible results.

Experiments:
The book describes a large number of specific experiments which are too numerous to describe. Instead, I will list the conclusions.

Various conclusions:
* Brain imaging has allowed scientists to find out exactly “how far an unconscious stimulus can travel in the brain, and exactly where it stops, thus defining what patterns of neural activity are exclusively associated with conscious processing.”
* Brain imaging shows all information registers and stays in an unconscious buffer temporarily. “A buffered item may be erased” if we are distracted, which is called “inattentional blindness.” “Inattention breeds invisibility,” as in the case of the invisible gorilla experiments.
* Because of these problems of perception, humans make terrible witnesses. We suffer from inattentional blindness and change blindness to what we haven’t attended to properly.
* “A staggering amount of unconscious processing occurs beneath the surface of our conscious mind.”
* “It is possible for a visual image to be physically presented in the eye for a long duration, and to progress into the brain areas dedicated to visual processing, yet be totally suppressed from conscious experience” due to the rivalry for conscious access. “Rivalry requires an active, attentive observer.”
* So “attention does play an important role in the cortical competition process.”
* “Conscious perception relies predominantly on the higher-level association cortex.”
* “Even outlandish subjective phenomena can be traced back to their neural origins.” For instance, stimulating “a cortical region in the right temporoparietal junction ... repeatedly caused a sensation of out-of-body transportation.”
* “Based on what we now know, virtually all the brain’s regions can participate in both conscious and unconscious thought. To get to this conclusion, however, clever experiments were needed to progressively expand our understanding of the range of the unconscious.”
* “Emotional appraisals are made extraordinarily quickly and unconsciously, mediated by the fast circuitry of the amygdala.”
* Unconscious priming speeds up processing. “Repetition leads to facilitation – even when it goes totally undetected.”
* Conscious processing is not required for binding visual information. Some occurs without it.
* “What we experience as a conscious visual scene is a highly processed image, quite different from the raw input that we receive from the eyes.” We perceive three dimensions without retinal defects and distortions, stabilized for movements, and “massively reinterpreted based on our previous experience.” Our brain is working for us even when we don’t feel it working.
* “Brain regions involved in sematic processing could be activated without consciousness.” “A word or a digit can travel througout the brain, bias our decisions, and affect our language networks, all the while remaining unseen.” However, “unconscious words are not as influential as conscious ones.”
* “Consciousness requires attention” but “attention can also be deployed unconsciously.” “It turns out that our attentional spotlight is operated by armies of unconscious workers that silently sift through piles of rubble before one of them hits gold and alerts us of its finding.” “The filter called ‘selective attention’ must continally operate outside our awareness, in order to decide which incoming inputs call for out mental resources. Unconscious attention acts as a constant watchdog.”
* Assigning values can be unconscious. “Because our unconscious operations elude us, we constantly overestimate the role that consciousness plays in our physical and mental lives.” Unconscious hunches can guide behavior, but require conscious verification. “Unconscious processes excel in assigning values to many items and averaging them to reach a decision.”
* “Recently, sophisticated executive functions have been shown to operate unconsciously, based on invisible stimuli.” These include 1) the ability to inhibit a routine response, 2) switching tasks, 3) detecting errors, and 4) controlling mental operations. (See Note at end.)
* “Psychology has amply demonstrated not only that subliminal perception exists but that a whole array of mental processes can be launched without consciousness (even though, in most cases, they do not run to full completion).” “Virtually any brain processor can operate unconsciously.”
* “Many experimental stimuli provide optimal contrasts between conscious and unconscious states.” “Unconscious information remains confined to a narrow brain circuit, while consciously preceived information is globally distributed to the vast majority of the cortex for an extended time.”
* Scientists are getting closer to being able to decode a subjective state of the mind from an objective state of the brain due to “a direct causal mapping between neural states and conscious perception.”
* One can erase a conscious experience by interfering with its propagation.

The signatures of consciousness:
Lab techniques have yielded reproducible “signatures of consciousness” in brain activity. “These signatures are remarkably stable and can be observed in a great variety of visual, auditory, tactile, and cognitive stimulations.” The four signatures are:
1) “a sudden ignition of parietal and prefrontal circuits” which is similar to a phase transition between unconscious and conscious processing,
2) a P3 wave, a late slow wave, 1/3 to 1/2 second after a stimulus,
3) “a late sudden burst of high-frequency [gamma band] oscillations,”
4) “a synchronization of information exchanges across distant brain regions.”
To compensate for the lag-time of consciousness per the second signature, much of our behavior works on autopilot and many of our perceptions work in anticipation of what we will perceive.

Theory:
The global neuronal workspace hypothesis supported by such observations maintains that “consciousness is brain-wide information sharing,” or as Daniel Dennett called it, “fame in the brain.” This allows us to keep such information in mind, imprint it on our memories, and process it in various ways. Consciousness “selects, amplifies, and propagates relevant thoughts.” “Although unconscious processing can be deep, conscious access adds an additional layer of functionality. The broadcasting function of consciousness allows us to perform uniquely powerful operations.” “Once information is conscious, it can be flexibly routed to other areas according to our current goals.” We can name it, evaluate it, memorize it, recall it, and act upon it. “The audience of the global workspace is ... a collection of other unconscious processors that receive a broadcast message and act upon it, each according to its own competence.”

“Equally fundamental to the global neuronal workspace is its autonomy. Recent studies have revealed that the brain is the seat of intense spontaneous activity. It is constantly traversed by global patterns of internal activity that originate not from the external world but from within, from the neurons’ peculiar capacity to self-activate in a partly random fashion.” “The outcome, I argue, is a ‘free-willing’ machine that resolves Descartes’s challenge and begins to look like a good model for consciousness.” “Stimulus-evoked activity accounts for only a very small amount of the total energy consumed by the brain, probably less than 5 percent. The nervous system primarily acts as an autonomous device that generates its own thought patterns.”

“Our belief in free will expresses the idea that, under the right circumstances, he have the ability to guide our decisions by our higher-level thoughts, beliefs, values, and past experiences, and to exert control over our undesired lower-level impulses.” About such decisions, the author considers “their fundamental indeterminacy (a dubious idea) and their autonomy (a respectable notion).” “Autonomy is the primary property of the nervous system.” Through “purposeful exploratory behavior ... during brain development, the relevant patterns are preserved while the inappropriate ones are weeded out” in a Darwinian selection process. Variations are followed by selection.

Supporting observations:
The functions of consciousness are reflected in brain architecture, in the length of neurons, the numbers of their dendrites/spines, and their extensive connections to other areas. There are 15,000 spines or more on each human prefrontal neuron. “We believe that a special set of neurons diffuses conscious messages throughout the brain: giant cells whose long axons crisscross the cortex, interconnecting it into an integrated whole.” “Neurons with long-distance axons are most abundant in the prefrontal cortex.” “When enough brain regions agree about the importance of incoming sensory information, they synchronize into a large-scale state of global communication. A broad network ignites into a burst of high-level activation – and the nature of this ignition explains our empirical signatures of consciousness.” “Anatomically, bottom-up and top-down pathways are both present throughout the cortex. Most long-distance connections are bi-directional, and the descending top-down projections often vastly outnumber the ascending ones.” “During the consciously perceived trials, we observed a massive increase in bidirectional causality throughout the brain.”

“Not all brain circuits are equally important for conscious experience. Peripheral sensory and motor circuits can be activated without necessarily generating a conscious experience. Higher-order regions of the temporal, parietal, and prefrontal cortexes, on the other hand, are more intimately associated with a reportable conscious experience, since their stimulation can induce purely subjective hallucinations that have no foundation in objective reality.”

The executive:
Consciousness performs an executive role, like the spokesman for a large organization. Unconscious processes are fast and parallel. Conscious processes are slow and serial. “Consciousness gives us the power of a sophisticated serial computer.” “Complex strategies, formed by stringing together several elementary steps – what computer scientists call ‘algorithms’ – are another of consciousness’s uniquely evolved functions.” “The capacity to synthesize information over time, space, and modalities of knowledge, and to rethink it at any time in the future, is a fundamental component of the conscious mind, one that seems likely to have been positively selected for during evolution.” Effectively, we possess “a hybrid serial-parallel machine” to process information.

“The component of the mind that psychologists call ‘working memory’ is one of the dominant functions of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the areas that it connects with, thus making these areas strong candidates for the depositories of our conscious knowledge.” Lesions to these areas result in inabilities to plan for the future, inhibit unwanted actions, and think long-term. So “the prefrontal cortex seems to play a key role in our ability to maintain information over time, to reflect upon it, and to integrate it into our unfolding plans.” It is involved with “learning over time, rather than simply living in the instant.” In contrast, “subliminal thoughts last only for an instant,” a second or two at the most. “Subliminal information cannot enter into our strategic deliberations.” The unconscious gives us hunches only, so “we need to be conscious in order to rationally think through a problem.”

Applications of these studies:
“The vegetative state is a mixed bag of poorly understood conditions that even include rare cases of conscious but noncommunicating patients.” “Sophisticated mathematical analysis of brain signals is beginning to reliably sort out which patients retain a conscious life and which do not.” Such patients include the victims of “car crashes, strokes, failed suicides, carbon monoxide poisonings, and drowning accidents.” Tests for consciousness are asymmetrical, which means that while positive results can confirm consciousness, negative results are still uncertain. “Using automated brain measures, we can now detect traces of consciousness long before they manifest in overt behavior.”

“We are in for a revolution in the treatment of disorders of consciousness.” Schizophrenia can be conceptualized as a disease of consciousness, in which the sufferer’s “main problem seems to lie in the global integration of incoming information into a coherent whole,” perhaps due to “the loss of long-distance connections” that play such an important role in information sharing.

Other conscious beings:
We can now detect consciousness from its signatures, elicited in various ways, in babies and in other species. “Infants exhibit the same signatures of conscious perception as adults, but they process information at a much slower speed.” The youngest so tested were two months old. (One theory states that, because “in the womb ... the fetus is essentially sedated” to remain in a sleep-like state, a birth may also actually be the birth of waking consciousness.) Also, monkeys tested very similarly to humans. “I would not be surprised if we discovered that all mammals, and probably many species of birds and fish, show evidence of a convergent evolution to the same sort of conscious workspace.”

Note: The author did not address how conscious efforts may set up certain varieties of unconscious processing to begin with, especially in terms of perceived meanings and executive functions.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • Dānu, SteveII
Reply

Consciousness
(03-28-2020, 11:47 PM)Hussein Wrote: Among the various theories of consciousness, there is a theory referred to as Electromagnetic theory of consciousness. In short, it says consciousness is identical to a certain pattern in the electromagnetic field. It is proposed in an article published in the Journal of Consciousness Studies, a peer-reviewed academic journal. The implications of the theory are discussed in a book titled The Nature of Consciousness: A Hypothesis.

In the last chapter, the author presents an interpretation of the concept of God:

Quote: The point is that if the idea presented in this book is true, then the universe as a whole is conscious. Furthermore, this universal consciousness can be thought of as continuously experiencing, in real time, every sensation and perception, every thought, every emotion that is generated by the mind of every conscious being in the universe. If this is not a description of what humans through the ages have conceived of as God, then it must come pretty close.

Seen in this context, the core "mystical" experience which, at least according to Bucke's great late-nineteenth century classic (Bucke, 1993) happened to all of the founders of the world's great religions and was the immediate cause of their becoming spiritual leaders, straight away becomes to some extent understandable.
p. 94

She continues:

Quote:If the all-pervading electromagnetic field is in fact conscious, then the unity experience simply represents the sudden realization by one tiny conscious fragment of the field that it is not, after all, isolated and alone in its immediate surround of bone and flesh, but is in fact an inalienable part of the vast, glorious whole.
p. 95

She suggests that the local electromagnetic field of the brain can merge with the universal electromagnetic field (revelation from God), and bring back some "news" about the "unseen". She suggests this might be how religions are founded.

The theory is supported by some observed interactions of consciousness and the electromagnetic field. But is in no way established or even popular in the scientific community. Few other theories also suggest a universal consciousness.

I think this theory sufficiently demonstrates that religious thoughts are not categorically different from intellectual and scientific thoughts and the claim that religions must be classified as myth and fantasy is inaccurate.

So, I think religious beliefs deserve tolerance as much as some unusual scientific and intellectual interpretations deserve it.

I am borrowing your post from another discussion to answer it here.

You are quoting an academic journal rather than a scientific journal. There are different standards. According to your own link to Wikipedia: "In contrast to other journals, it attempts to incorporate fields beyond the realm of the natural sciences and the social sciences such as the humanities, philosophy, critical theory, comparative religion, and mysticism." So no, the electromagnetic hypothesis would not be published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. It might be respected by philosophers and mystics, but not by scientists. And atheists typically take their cues from scientists rather than philosophers.

The reason why this hypothesis would not be respected by scientists is that electricity is only one component of consciousness. Chemistry is also important, and the complex structure of individual brains is much more important for explaining consciousness.
The following 2 users Like Alan V's post:
  • SYZ, Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
Dualism is impossible due the opposite way material is defined and spirituality defined with respect to reality. The only thing we know to exist and have direct experience of is in fact idea/spiritual type existence. We are an idea, this is what we know to exist. We don't know actually know what really consists of material existence.

When we see colours, we don't see the rays, we see an idea representing them (the colours). When touch, it's an idea. When feel weight, idea. All these are ideas and none of them tell us what material essence is.

In fact when we see ourselves, we don't see material. We see idea type existence. The question is, is it possible for the opposite of this type of existence which we don't what it is but define to be opposite to what we are (idea type existence) to generate us.

For me it's obvious it's impossible. The true nature of all things is idea/spiritual type existence. Even the smallest molecules are idea type existence.

Like a dream, no material essence is real. Only idea type existence. The brain and body in general, is a way to interact with this world. It's like an avatar in a game. We don't exist in our body, we control our body.

It's impossible due to the fact of how they are oppositely defined with respect to reality and essence. They are so far removed from each other, one can't generate the other. Material existence is impossible by what it is. Not even God can create it.
Reply

Consciousness
(03-29-2020, 02:14 PM)Link Wrote: Dualism is impossible due the opposite way material is defined and spirituality defined with respect to reality...

So-called "spirituality" cannot be meaningfully defined in terms of reality, or science or logic.

Spirituality is whatever the practitioner claims it to be.    Nothing more; nothing less.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply

Consciousness
(03-29-2020, 02:26 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(03-29-2020, 02:14 PM)Link Wrote: Dualism is impossible due the opposite way material is defined and spirituality defined with respect to reality...

So-called "spirituality" cannot be meaningfully defined in terms of reality, or science or logic.

Spirituality is whatever the practitioner claims it to be.    Nothing more; nothing less.

Yet we are an idea and the only type of existence we know to be real. Go figure.
The following 1 user Likes Link's post:
  • Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
(03-29-2020, 02:14 PM)Link Wrote: Dualism is impossible due the opposite way material is defined and spirituality defined with respect to reality.  The only thing we know to exist and have direct experience of is in fact idea/spiritual type existence. We are an idea, this is what we know to exist. We don't know actually know what really consists of material existence.

When we see colours, we don't see the rays, we see an idea representing them (the colours). When touch, it's an idea. When feel weight, idea. All these are ideas and none of them tell us what material essence is.

In fact when we see ourselves, we don't see material. We see idea type existence.  The question is, is it possible for the opposite of this type of existence which we don't what it is but define to be opposite to what we are (idea type existence) to generate us.

For me it's obvious it's impossible. The true nature of all things is idea/spiritual type existence. Even the smallest molecules are idea type existence.

Like a dream, no material essence is real.  Only idea type existence. The brain and body in general, is a way to interact with this world. It's like an avatar in a game.  We don't exist in our body, we control our body.

It's impossible due to the fact of how they are oppositely defined with respect to reality and essence. They are so far removed from each other, one can't generate the other. Material existence is impossible by what it is. Not even God can create it.

Fallacy of the stolen concept. Deadpan Coffee Drinker
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(03-29-2020, 03:11 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-29-2020, 02:14 PM)Link Wrote: Dualism is impossible due the opposite way material is defined and spirituality defined with respect to reality.  The only thing we know to exist and have direct experience of is in fact idea/spiritual type existence. We are an idea, this is what we know to exist. We don't know actually know what really consists of material existence.

Fallacy of the stolen concept.  

Yes, I agree.  "Existence" has been purloined in Link's critique.  Ideas must pertain to realities to have any claim to existence.  That's why some ideas are untrue, some are vague, some are fantasies, and some are accurate.
Reply

Consciousness
(03-29-2020, 04:29 PM)Alan V Wrote:
(03-29-2020, 03:11 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-29-2020, 02:14 PM)Link Wrote: Dualism is impossible due the opposite way material is defined and spirituality defined with respect to reality.  The only thing we know to exist and have direct experience of is in fact idea/spiritual type existence. We are an idea, this is what we know to exist. We don't know actually know what really consists of material existence.

Fallacy of the stolen concept.  

Yes, I agree.  "Existence" has been purloined in Link's critique.  Ideas must pertain to realities to have any claim to existence.  That's why some ideas are untrue, some are vague, some are fantasies, and some are accurate.

Actually I was referring to his referring to the material. If the material doesn't exist, then the reference becomes null. Existence is the prime issue, being the perennial problem of defining what "substance" is. I think the most we can conclude is that monism is warranted, ala Berkeley, but a monism of exactly what is another matter.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 2 users Like Dānu's post:
  • Alan V, Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
(03-29-2020, 10:17 AM)Alan V Wrote: You are quoting an academic journal rather than a scientific journal.

The Journal of Consciousness Studies is interdisciplinary, it encompasses cognitive science, neurophysiology, and philosophy disciplines, it publishes philosophical works as well, and that is why it is not categorized as a 'scientific journal' in Wikipedia. But this article, in particular, is not a philosophical work, it evaluates the available evidence, proposes test experiments and all that. 

Quote:There are different standards.

Impact factor is a common quality measure. It's the average number of citations the journal receives in a year divided by the number of published documents. This journal has an impact factor of 0.78 (as seen in Wikipedia page). High impact journals in cognitive science score around 3.0. Nature has an impact factor of 43. 

Quote:it attempts to incorporate fields beyond the realm of the natural sciences and the social sciences such as the humanities, philosophy, critical theory, comparative religion, and mysticism.

Mystical and religious experiences are unusual experiences and are distinct from waking/sleeping/dreaming cycles. They can be very important in the formulation of a consciousness theory. So I think covering these domains in consciousness studies can bee seen as an advantage. 

EEG activity in Carmelite nuns during a mystical experience (2008) published in Neuroscience Letters concludes: "mystical experiences are mediated by marked changes in EEG power and coherence".

Quote:It might be respected by philosophers and mystics, but not by scientists. 

The EM theory is a scientific theory proposed by Susan Pockett, a practicing neuroscientist who has experimental collaborations with Walter Freeman, the main pioneer of EEG. And McFadden a well-known cognitive scientist.

Electromagnetic field theory of consciousness has received citations from 38 other scientific works. Receiving citations from other scientific works is a clear indicator that a work is accepted as a legitimate scientific research. 

So, this theory is not intended for philosophers and mystics, as it has not received citations from philosophy or religious studies works. It's a legitimate scientific hypothesis as indicated by the citations it has received from the scientific community.

Quote:The reason why this hypothesis would not be respected by scientists is that electricity is only one component of consciousness. Chemistry is also important, and the complex structure of individual brains is much more important for explaining consciousness.

EM theory postulates that biochemical processes trigger electrical activities, which in turn create an EM field. Certain patterns in this unified EM field is identical to consciousness. So biochemical aspects are not dismissed, those are necessary for the EM field with certain characteristics to exist. 

One of the strengths of this theory is that it solves the binding problem:

Quote:The problem of how objects, background and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single experience

The field integrates the discrete features of the brain into a single unified and measurable reality, namely, the electromagnetic field of the brain. This is a neat solution. The mechanism of integration of discrete information into a unified reality is one of the serious problems in consciousness theories.
The following 1 user Likes Hussein's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(01-23-2020, 02:05 PM)Alan V Wrote: This is all there is to the physical nervous system: neurons, connections, electricity, glial cells, blood vessels, blood, and chemical messengers and receptors.  These most basic structures and mechanisms are the same for all animals.  What is different between the brains of different species are the numbers of neurons employed to code information.  For instance, primitive worms (nematodes) have 300 neurons; snails have 20,000; and honeybees have 1 million compared with humans’ 100 billion.

It took millions of years for human brains to evolve to this level of complexity.  The basic function of any brain is to sense and respond to the environment and internal states, but such functions are not unique to nervous systems.  Even primitive cells can sense and move.  But cell cooperation in multi-cell organisms led to specialization through differentiation.  That set the stage for the evolution of nervous systems.  

Makes me wonder how many animals exist in the universe who have evolved longer than we have and in such a way that their consciousness is more impressive than ours. What would a higher consciousness animal perceive?
[Image: nL4L1haz_Qo04rZMFtdpyd1OZgZf9NSnR9-7hAWT...dc2a24480e]

The following 1 user Likes Aegon's post:
  • Alan V
Reply

Consciousness
(03-30-2020, 06:24 PM)Hussein Wrote: Mystical and religious experiences are unusual experiences and are distinct from waking/sleeping/dreaming cycles. They can be very important in the formulation of a consciousness theory. So I think covering these domains in consciousness studies can bee seen as an advantage. 

EEG activity in Carmelite nuns during a mystical experience (2008) published in Neuroscience Letters concludes: "mystical experiences are mediated by marked changes in EEG power and coherence".

All subjective experiences fall within the domain of consciousness studies, but that does not mean the interpretations of religious practitioners do.

(03-30-2020, 06:24 PM)Hussein Wrote: The EM theory is a scientific theory proposed by Susan Pockett, a practicing neuroscientist who has experimental collaborations with Walter Freeman, the main pioneer of EEG. And McFadden a well-known cognitive scientist.

Electromagnetic field theory of consciousness has received citations from 38 other scientific works. Receiving citations from other scientific works is a clear indicator that a work is accepted as a legitimate scientific research. 

So, this theory is not intended for philosophers and mystics, as it has not received citations from philosophy or religious studies works. It's a legitimate scientific hypothesis as indicated by the citations it has received from the scientific community.

EM theory postulates that biochemical processes trigger electrical activities, which in turn create an EM field. Certain patterns in this unified EM field is identical to consciousness. So biochemical aspects are not dismissed, those are necessary for the EM field with certain characteristics to exist. 

I am concerned that you might have misrepresented this theoretical approach in your first post, since there is no way that "the universe as a whole is conscious" as a brain is once you have admitted that brain structure and chemistry are essential.

(03-30-2020, 06:24 PM)Hussein Wrote: One of the strengths of this theory is that it solves the binding problem:

The field integrates the discrete features of the brain into a single unified and measurable reality, namely, the electromagnetic field of the brain. This is a neat solution. The mechanism of integration of discrete information into a unified reality is one of the serious problems in consciousness theories.

There are several competing hypotheses to resolve the binding problem.  One is the global neuronal workspace hypothesis discussed in post #184 above.  http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid191686

Another is Allan Hobson's protoconsciousness hypothesis, which suggests that REM sleep was evolved and encoded in our genes exactly to bind together our perceptions automatically.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • Hussein
Reply

Consciousness
(03-30-2020, 08:46 PM)Alan V Wrote: All subjective experiences fall within the domain of consciousness studies, but that does not mean the interpretations of religious practitioners do.

Interpretations of mystics and the religious becomes relevant when the scientific theories allow these interpretations to be accurate. It seems it has been the case in the EM theory. That is why the author dedicates one chapter of her book to explain mystical and religious interpretations using her theory.

Quote:I am concerned that you might have misrepresented this theoretical approach in your first post, since there is no way that "the universe as a whole is conscious" the same way a brain is once you have admitted that brain structure and chemistry are essential.

I don't think so since I simply copied and pasted the text from the book authored by Susan Pockett who is also the author of the scientific paper. 

The book is available here for free. You can look into it. This bit might be helpful:

Quote:If simple consciousness is indeed identical with certain localized configurations of the electromagnetic field, then the electromagnetic field as a whole (which as far as we know pervades the entire universe) includes all of the conscious configurations that currently exist in the universe. The electromagnetic field as a whole can thus be thought of as one vast mind. 

Quote:There are several competing hypotheses to resolve the binding problem.  One is the global neuronal workspace hypothesis discussed in post #184 above.  http://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/show...#pid191686

Another is Allan Hobson's protoconsciousness hypothesis, which suggests that REM sleep was evolved and encoded in our genes exactly to bind together our perceptions automatically.

Thanks, I will look into it.
Reply

Consciousness
(03-30-2020, 06:24 PM)Hussein Wrote: Mystical and religious experiences are unusual experiences and are distinct from waking/sleeping/dreaming cycles. They can be very important in the formulation of a consciousness theory. So I think covering these domains in consciousness studies can bee seen as an advantage. 

In what way are they distinct?
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply

Consciousness
(03-30-2020, 09:29 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-30-2020, 06:24 PM)Hussein Wrote: Mystical and religious experiences are unusual experiences and are distinct from waking/sleeping/dreaming cycles. They can be very important in the formulation of a consciousness theory. So I think covering these domains in consciousness studies can bee seen as an advantage. 

In what way are they distinct?

As I said in my original post:

EEG activity in Carmelite nuns during a mystical experience (2008) published in Neuroscience Letters concludes: "mystical experiences are mediated by marked changes in EEG power and coherence".

This means objectively, these experiences are correlated with "changes in EEG power and coherence" as suggested by this research. I think there are more experimental works on this subject, I wanted to make the point that they are objectively distinct experiences by some measure, like EEG patterns.

Subjectively, the reports of mystical experiences are considerably different from subjective reports of waking and dreaming experiences.
Reply

Consciousness
(03-30-2020, 09:36 PM)Hussein Wrote:
(03-30-2020, 09:29 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(03-30-2020, 06:24 PM)Hussein Wrote: Mystical and religious experiences are unusual experiences and are distinct from waking/sleeping/dreaming cycles. They can be very important in the formulation of a consciousness theory. So I think covering these domains in consciousness studies can bee seen as an advantage. 

In what way are they distinct?

As I said in my original post:

EEG activity in Carmelite nuns during a mystical experience (2008) published in Neuroscience Letters concludes: "mystical experiences are mediated by marked changes in EEG power and coherence".

This means objectively, these experiences are correlated with "changes in EEG power and coherence" as suggested by this research. I think there are more experimental works on this subject, I wanted to make the point that they are objectively distinct experiences by some measure, like EEG patterns.

Subjectively, the reports of mystical experiences are considerably different from subjective reports of waking and dreaming experiences.

The nuns in that study were asked to remember the most intense mystical experience in their lives, and in the control condition were asked to remember the most intense state of union with another human being. The first is not a mystical experience but an ordinary waking state, and the latter may or may not encompass much of a range of states. Neither case was compared against sleep and dream states. So this study doesn't support the claim you've made for it. You've misrepresented the evidence.

It's also worth noting that the study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation and the nature of that relationship appears to have colored the representation of the science, what little of it there is in the paper.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
The following 1 user Likes Dānu's post:
  • SYZ
Reply

Consciousness
(03-30-2020, 09:54 PM)Dānu Wrote: The nuns in that study were asked to remember the most intense mystical experience in their lives, and in the control condition were asked to remember the most intense state of union with another human being.  The first is not a mystical experience but an ordinary waking state, and the latter may or may not encompass much of a range of states.  Neither case was compared against sleep and dream states.  So this study doesn't support the claim you've made for it.  You've misrepresented the evidence.

The fact that dreaming and dreamless sleeping are categorically different from mystical experiences should be obvious, as these states are distinguished by very limited physical activity and no response to mild stimuli. So, no EEG comparisons are needed to note that obvious distinction.

The question is whether mystical experiences are distinct from normal waking experiences or not. 

This study seems to suggest there is.

Quote:It's also worth noting that the study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation and the nature of that relationship appears to have colored the representation of the science, what little of it there is in the paper.

It's published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.
Reply

Consciousness
(03-30-2020, 09:54 PM)Dānu Wrote: The nuns in that study were asked to remember the most intense mystical experience in their lives, and in the control condition were asked to remember the most intense state of union with another human being.  The first is not a mystical experience but an ordinary waking state, and the latter may or may not encompass much of a range of states.  

Your skepticism about the methodology is appreciated, but your criticisms, including the relationship with John Templeton Foundation, do not seem substantiated:

Quote:The main methodological limitation of this study is the fact that the subjects were asked to remember and relive a mystical experience rather than actually try to achieve one. Such a strategy was used because the subjects told us a priori that they were not able of reaching a mystical state at will. We contend that this limitation does not represent a major problem since the phenomenological data reveal that the subjects actually experienced genuine mystical experiences during the Mystical condition. Importantly, these mystical experiences felt subjectively different than the memories used to access a mystical state.

Quote:The average intensity of the subjective experience was 3.10 ± 0.94 (range: 2–5) during the Mystical condition and 3.10 ± 1.00 (range: 2–5) during the Control condition. 
As for the phenomenology of the subjective experience during the Mystical condition, summed scores of 15 or above were noted for 6 items of the Mysticism Scale [12]: (1)I have had an experience in which something greater than my self seemed to absorb me; (2) I have experienced profound joy; (3) I have had an experience which I knew to be sacred; (4) I have had an experience which cannot be expressed with words; (5) I have had an experience in which I felt that everything in this world is part of the same whole; (6) I have had an experience which is impossible to communicate. During the qualitative interviews conducted at the end of the experiment, several subjects mentioned that during the Mystical condition they felt the presence of God, His unconditional and infinite love, as well as plenitude and peace. They also felt a surrendering to God. All subjects reported that from a first-person perspective, the experiences lived during the Mystical condition were different than the vivid memories of a mystical experience used to access a mystical state. 

Subjects also reported the presence of religiously charged visual mental imagery during the Mystical condition. Electrode sites showed greater theta power at F3 (P < 0.05), C3 (P < 0.01), P3 (P < 0.05), Fz (P < 0.05), Cz (P < 0.01) and Pz (P < 0.01). Greater gamma1 power was detected at T4 (P < 0.05) and P4 (P < 0.05) (Fig. 1). Higher beta1 power was measured at C4 (P < 0.05) and T6 (P < 0.05), and higher beta3 power was recorded at T4 (P < 0.05). A greater delta/beta ratio was noted at F3 (P < 0.05), C3 (P < 0.05), C4 (P < 0.01), T4 (P < 0.01), P4 (P < 0.05), T6 (P < 0.05), Fz (P < 0.05), Cz (P < 0.05), and Pz (P < 0.05). A greater theta/alpha ratio was measured at T5 (P < 0.05), P3 (P < 0.05), C4 (P < 0.05), P4 (P < 0.05) and Pz (P < 0.05). Last, a greater theta/beta ratio was found at F7 (P < 0.05), F3 (P < 0.01), C3 (P < 0.01), P3 (P < 0.05), F4 (P < 0.05), C4 (P < 0.01), T4 (P < 0.05), P4 (P < 0.01), T6 (P < 0.05), Fz (P < 0.01), Cz (P < 0.001) and Pz (P < 0.01). FP1–C3 (P < 0.01) pair of electrodes displayed greater coherence for theta band while F4–P4 (P < 0.05), F4–T6 (P < 0.05), F8–T6 (P < 0.05) and C4–P4 (P < 0.05) pairs of electrodes showed greater coherence for alpha band (Fig. 2). T5–O1 (P < 0.01) pair of electrodes displayed greater coherence for alpha band while FP1–FP2 (P < 0.05) pair of electrodes showed greater coherence for beta band.

The collected phenomenological data indicate that the subjects actually experienced genuine mystical experiences (not only vivid memories of a mystical state) during the Mystical condition (according to Stace’s definition of a mystical experience and the Mysticism Scale [26,12]). Experientially, the experiences reported during this condition were multidimensional, i.e., they implicated changes in perception (e.g., visual mental imagery), cognition (e.g., representations about the self), and emotion (e.g., peace, joy, and unconditional love). These experiential changes were associated with modifications of EEG spectral power in various regions of the brain. Particularly, theta power increased over left and central frontal and parietal regions, and a greater theta/beta ratio was found over frontal, central, temporal and parietal regions. In addition, gamma1 power increased in the right temporal and parietal regions
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)