The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 188353 times)

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
(Prior note : Biological evolution can never intrinsically account for consciousness , let alone for its emergence ,function, origin or nature .consciousness could never have evolved from the biological evolution , no way , simply because consciousness is irreducible to biology and cannot have emerged from it , no way .Think about that .It makes no biological sense whatsoever to assert that : the subjective personal qualitative experiential can never rise from the quantitative non-experiential "impersonal objective " biology : they are totally different from each other in kind .Even some of your best philosophers , scientists ... cannot but agree with me on that , dlorde .Think about it .)
I have thought about it, and I find it both plausible and compellingly supported by the evidence.

Since you mention it, let's consider the evolutionary perspective. Do you consider any other animals to have some form of consciousness? Other primates? cetaceans? corvids? - creatures that display signs of self-awareness, can communicate complex ideas, understand instructions, are creative, use tools, plan ahead, have theory of mind?

Would you agree that there are degrees of consciousness among other species in the animal kingdom, with less sophisticated creatures having lesser degrees of consciousness?

What, in particular, do you find incredible about the evolution of consciousness?

Quote
I don't know whether or not consciousness does collapse the wavefunction .I am just inclined to agree with what Alastair Rae ,for example ,said on the subject when talking about the consciousness -based interpretation of QM.
All due respect to Rae, but the available evidence says no, and the idea on which it was based has been shown to be mistaken.

Quote
Assume for a sec thus that consciousness is a separate non-physical and non-local process , that would solve the interpretation problem in QM
What, exactly, is a 'non-physical process'? how can it interact with the physical? how does it solve the interpretation problem?

Quote
A temporary unconscious person is no synonymous of a person without consciousness .The latter is still there ,it is just 'disconnected " somehow,  from that person's physical brain and body +from the rest of his/her environment, but not totally disconnected , i presume , i don't know  .

For example ,a younger brother of mine used to do some sleep walking when we were kids .I had even to go after him during a certain night when he sleep walked out of the house to the street ...to bring him back lol
He was asleep but nevertheless , he did things like a conscious person would like opening the doors , going out , talking , walking down the street,and even eating ,drinking ...while asleep  ...

fMRI scans are even able now to detect a minimum form of consciousness in vegetative patients , not to mention that even at the level of deep dreamless or paradoxical deep sleep , some neuroscientists claim to have detected some subtle forms of consciousness .

Some Buddhist meditation experts monks ,for example ,even claim that they can train their minds to be aware or conscious of ,monitor and control their deep sleep state .

When you wake up feeling like you slept well, they claim, that means that you have remembered your calm deep sleep , i don't know .

In short : being asleep or temporary unconscious does not mean a total absence of consciousness .
That's what I call a straw herring; a straw-man combined with a red herring...

Leave the goalposts where they are - unconscious means 'not conscious'. When I talked of someone unconscious, I didn't mean asleep, or sleep-walking, or conscious but unresponsive, I meant not concsious. My point was predicated on the absence of the conscious awareness of the result of a measurement that is the criterion for the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation. Not some kind of non-physical soul or spirit. If that's what you mean, you're talking about something else entirely.

Quote
Not to mention the fact that our unconsciousness is also a part of our separate souls that can have effects on our bodies brains and environment even when we are asleep or unconscious .
Well you're on your own there. I'm not here to talk about souls, spirits, the supernatural, magic, religion, or gods, but to discuss scientific ideas about our empirical observations.

Quote
You can't explain  the mystery of the interpretation of QM by trying to explain away the other major mystery :consciousness .See above .
I agree. That's why I'm not trying to explain either QM or consciousness, I'm just telling you that conscious collapse is untenable if it's based on Von Neumann's chain, because that isn't a correct description of the real-world situation.

Quote
... there is a lots of indirect empirical evidence that has been proving that ...
You're think indirect evidence can be proof ?  ???
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time  : Enjoy :


Sorry, Jim, the "offset dectector" is nonsense. How do you detect the atom passing through the slit without doing something to it? Heisenberg sorted this out a long time ago.

Suppose the offset detector was a photographic film. You do the experiment and get a result, either an interference pattern or two lines. Now toss a coin. If it comes down heads, you process the film. That is equivalent to switching on the detector, so the interference pattern you recorded (on another piece of film) must disappear and be replaced by two lines. Does it? I think not.   
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Alasatair Rae in his "Quantum physics , illusion or reality ? " book was even clearer when he talked about the interpretation problem in QM while discussing the co-authored book of Popper and Eccles that argued for a separate soul :
Alastair who's a proponent of MW interpretation of QM said that if there was indeed a separate soul , the latter would have causal effects on matter without obeying , by definition , any laws of physics ,and that would solve the interpretation problem in QM .



If there are souls that can causally affect matter without obeying any of the laws of the universe, but all they ever bother to do is f*ck with certain physics experiments in a consistent and predictable fashion, souls have an odd sense of humor.

That's a funny way of putting  it indeed . lol

I was being facetious.
Quote
The undeniable existence of separate souls has been f...with science ,especially with quantum physics ,  big time, by turning science in general upside down :


The undeniable existence of souls? Citation, please.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
The undeniable existence of souls? Citation, please.
Being charitable, it's true that if there was some magical or supernatural non-physical thing that could magically/supernaturally interact with the physical without obeying any laws of physics(!), then you wouldn't have to worry about any physical explanations for what we observe. You could just abandon everything we know and embrace the non-scientific magical/supernatural. But, of course, it's a not a direction for rational enquiry, it's counsel of despair. On a par with 'I don't understand it, therefore God'.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, dlorde :

The existence of the  separate non-physical and non-local consciousness or soul is a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified and that has been proved as such by many indirect empirical evidence ,since no direct evidence can be delivered on the subject (we can't observe consciousness or subjective experiences scientifically and directly ), while the identity theory as well as the emergent property theory regarding consciousness are untestable = unscientific .

The above mentioned nature of consciousness is the only one that can account for all consciousness related anomalies such as psi phenomena, for the effects of placebo/nocebo , for those of meditation , mindfulness, for our ability to control our autonomic nervous system via biofeedback training , for the mindful trained informed active self-directed neuroplasticity , for near death experiences , for out of body experiences , and much more .

Even the so-called integrated information theory regarding consciousness fails to account for all aspects of consciousness,to say the least  .

Furthermore , consciousness or awareness never "disappear " totally when we are unconscious , under anesthesia , in deep dreamless sleep, while we are dreaming ....

See below , regarding the fact that consciousness or awareness never 'disappears " totally at least as well as regarding the so-called integrated information theory and more :

Excerpt from "    WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy       ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :

Extremely fascinating read . The marriage between cognitive science and contemplative ancient wisdom is promising .

This marriage can do much better ( can give births to promising beautiful kids lol ) than Libet's combination of first person personal subjective reports with neuroscience .

A fresh release , just for your blue eyes , guys :  November 2014 : Enjoy :

Quote : "EAST MEETS WEST :

Let me summarize things up to this point. Our guiding question is whether some kind of consciousness is present in deep and dreamless sleep. Related to this question is whether, at the moment of awakening, we have some kind of memory of the deep sleep state or make a retrospective inference about having been asleep and unaware. Further related questions are what happens to the self and whether there’s some kind of self-experience in deep sleep.


The Indian philosophical treatments of these questions about deep and dreamless sleep give careful attention to a part of human life that contemporary Western philosophy of mind basically neglects.
Although philosophers of mind have written about dreaming, they’ve said almost nothing about dreamless sleep.



 Even phenomenology in the tradition of Edmund Husserl—the philosophical tradition that reigns supreme in the Western investigation of consciousness—says little about deep and dreamless sleep compared to the richness of the Indian philosophical discussions.
What about neuroscience? What does it have to say about deep and dreamless sleep?.


According to the standard neuroscience way of thinking, deep and dreamless sleep is a state where consciousness fades and sometimes disappears completely. Indeed, neuroscientists often try to define consciousness as that which disappears in deep sleep. As neuroscientists Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch write, “When you fall asleep … the level of consciousness decreases to the point that you become virtually unconscious—the degree to which you are conscious (of anything) becomes progressively less and less.”

 Elsewhere Tononi writes: “Everybody knows what consciousness is: it is what vanishes every night when we fall into a dreamless sleep and reappears when we wake up or when we dream.”

Philosopher John Searle agrees: “Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness. Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamless sleep and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma, or otherwise become ‘unconscious.’”
From the Indian and Tibetan contemplative perspectives, however, these descriptions are inaccurate.

Although object-directed consciousness becomes progressively less and less as we move from waking or dreaming into deep and dreamless sleep, awareness or sentience continues.


For Yoga and Vedānta, whereas dreaming is a form of object-directed consciousness—the objects in dreams being mental images—dreamless sleep is a mode of consciousness without an object.


Similarly, according to Tibetan Buddhism, deep sleep is a state of “subtle consciousness” without sensory or cognitive content, and it’s the basis upon which dreaming and waking consciousness arise.

The Indian and Tibetan conceptions of deep and dreamless sleep bring a new perspective to the neuroscience of consciousness, especially to experimental investigations of brain activity during sleep.

At the same time, findings from the neuroscience of sleep are relevant to the Indian debates, especially to the differences between the Yoga and Vedānta views of mental functioning in deep and dreamless sleep.

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?:

Why have neuroscientists thought that consciousness fades or disappears during deep and dreamless sleep? .

One reason comes from the reports people give when they’re woken up from non-REM or NREM sleep, especially when the EEG shows slow waves in the delta frequency range (0.5–4 Hertz) during sleep stages 3 and 4 (so-called slow-wave sleep). When given the instruction, “report anything that was going through your mind just before waking up,” people tend to report short and fragmentary thoughts or not being able to remember anything at all.27 On that basis, scientists conclude that the sleepers were aware of little or nothing at all prior to being woken up, and hence that slow-wave sleep is a state of reduced or absent consciousness.

Yet we should be cautious here. The fact that you have no memory of some period of time doesn’t necessarily imply that you lacked all consciousness during that time. You might have been conscious— in the sense of undergoing qualitative states or processes of sentience or awareness—but for one reason or another not been able to form the kind of memories that later you can retrieve and verbally report.

This point is familiar to scientists who study the effects of anesthetics. At certain doses, some anesthetics prevent memory formation while sparing awareness. As neuroscientists Michael Alkire, Giulio Tononi, and their colleagues state in an article on consciousness and anesthesia:



At doses near the unconsciousness threshold, some anesthetics block working memory. Thus, patients may fail to respond because they immediately forget what to do. At much lower doses, anesthetics cause profound amnesia. Studies with the isolated forearm technique, in which a tourniquet is applied to the arm before paralysis is induced (to allow the hand to move while the rest of the body is paralyzed), show that patients under general anesthesia can sometimes carry on a conversation using hand signals, but postoperatively deny ever being awake. Thus, retrospective oblivion is no proof of unconsciousness.


Although dreamless sleep and anesthesia aren’t the same condition, the general point that retrospective oblivion doesn’t prove a prior lack of consciousness must be kept in mind whenever we’re tempted to infer that consciousness is absent in deep sleep because people report not being able to remember anything when they’re woken up.

If consciousness continues in deep sleep, there may be various reasons people report not being able to remember anything when they’re woken up. One reason commonly given in Yoga and Tibetan Buddhism is that deeper aspects of consciousness unfamiliar to ordinary waking awareness can’t be cognitively accessed and reported without a high degree of meditative mental training.

We also need to think about the kinds of verbal reports that people are asked to make when they’re woken up in the sleep lab. The instruction to report “anything going through your mind just before waking up” encourages you to direct your attention and memory to the objects of your awareness—to anything you might have been thinking about. But what about the felt qualities of awareness itself?.

 A different instruction, to report “anything you were feeling just before waking up,” would encourage you to direct your attention and memory to the felt quality of your sleep. Did you have any feeling of being aware or in some kind of sentient state? Was your sleep peaceful and clear or agitated, restless, or sluggish? Or do you have no impression of any feeling or quality of awareness? The point is to guide people away from focusing exclusively on the objects of consciousness, which may be absent in deep sleep, and to orient them toward the felt qualities of awareness itself.

The connection between this point and the earlier one about meditative mental training is that individuals with such training, especially in lucid dream yoga and sleep yoga, may be able to give more detailed reports about qualities of awareness during sleep than untrained individuals can. We’ll return to this idea at the end of this chapter.

SLOW-WAVE SLEEP AND THE BRAIN :

Another reason neuroscientists think that consciousness fades or ceases in deep sleep comes from comparing brain activity during slow-wave sleep with brain activity during waking consciousness.

For example, Marcello Massimini, Giulio Tononi, and their colleagues at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, studied how the brain responds to being stimulated by a brief pulse of electricity at a small and precisely chosen region when subjects are awake versus when they’re in deep sleep.

During wakefulness, the pulse triggers a sustained EEG response that lasts for 300 milliseconds and is made up of rapidly changing waves that propagate in specific directions over long distances in the cortex. During deep sleep, however, although the initial response is stronger than during wakefulness, it remains localized to the stimulated brain region and lasts only 150 milliseconds.

 In short, whereas the waking brain responds to stimulation with a complex pattern of large-scale activity across many interconnected regions, the deeply sleeping brain responds with localized and short-lived activity.

Tononi and his colleagues interpret these findings as showing that “effective connectivity”—the ability of neural systems to influence each other—breaks down in deep sleep.

As a result, “large-scale integration” in the brain can’t happen, that is, the brain can’t generate the kinds of dynamically changing large-scale patterns of activity—such as the neural synchrony patterns discussed in chapter 2 —that characterize moment-to-moment awareness in the waking state.
What causes these losses in effective connectivity and large-scale integration in deep sleep? .

Part of the answer has to do with what are called “up” and “down” states in slow-wave sleep. During deep sleep, virtually all cortical neurons alternate between being active—the up state—and being completely inactive—the down state. In the up state, neurons fire at their waking rates for about a second; in the down state, they’re silent.

The synchronous occurrence of the up state in numerous neuronal populations is what generates the large-amplitude slow waves of the EEG measured at the scalp. The more active the neurons and the longer they stay in the up state, the more likely they are to fall into the down state, after which they revert to another up state. Think of a light bulb that’s more likely to go off depending on how brightly it burns and how long it’s on, but then turns back on again after being off.
Instead of having one stable state, the bulb is bistable, going on and off.

Similarly, the up state in cortical neurons during slow-wave sleep isn’t stable the way it is in wakefulness or REM sleep; rather, slow-wave sleep is inherently bistable, with the up state precipitating the down state, followed by a rebound to the up state, and so on. Any local activation—any turning on of the neurons at a particular region—will eventually trigger a down state that prevents those neurons from communicating with more distant ones. In this way, the effective connectivity between regions breaks down and large-scale integration across selective regions cannot happen.

But what is it about the loss of effective connectivity and large-scale integration that makes neuroscientists think that consciousness disappears in deep sleep? To put the question another way, what’s the connection between the presence of consciousness and the presence of effective connectivity and large-scale integration?.

To answer this question, neuroscientists usually rely on the idea that a content of consciousness is reportable, and that reportable contents can be attentionally selected, held in working memory, and used to guide thought and action. These cognitive processes—selective attention, working memory, sequential thought, and action guidance—require the large-scale integration of brain activity.

One of the more principled versions of this idea is Giulio Tononi’s “integrated information theory” of consciousness.30 According to this theory, any typical conscious experience has two crucial properties.

First, it’s highly “informative,” in the technical sense that it rules out a huge number of alternative experiences. Even an apparently simple conscious experience, such as lying on your back and seeing the clear blue sky throughout your whole visual field, is richly informative in the sense that it rules out a vast number of other experiences you could have had at that moment. You could have seen the sky as red or some other color, or your eyes could have been closed, or you could have experienced a flock of birds flying overhead, or you could have been focusing attentively on a nearby conversation, and so on.

Second, the experience is highly “integrated,” in the sense that it can’t be subdivided into parts that you experience on their own, such as the top and bottom portions of your visual field, or the color and the space of the sky.

Given this model of consciousness as “integrated information,” Tononi proposes that the level of consciousness of a system at a given time is a matter of how many possible states (information) are available to the system as a whole (integration). In the waking state, many possible states are available to the whole system (the system is rich in integrated information), whereas in deep sleep this repertoire drastically shrinks to just a few states (the system is poor in integrated information). Transposed onto the brain, the idea is that during slow-wave sleep there’s a massive loss of integrated information in the brain.

 Effective connectivity breaks down, leaving isolated islands that can’t talk to each other (loss of integration), while the repertoire of possible states contracts to a few largely uniform states (loss of information). Hence, according to the integrated information model, deep sleep is a state where consciousness reduces to a very low level or disappears entirely.


Although the integrated information theory offers a useful way to think about the qualitative richness and coherence of consciousness in informational terms, it has a serious limitation as a theory of phenomenal consciousness, so it would be a mistake to use it to rule out the possibility of consciousness during dreamless sleep. Despite Tononi’s bold claim that “consciousness is one and the same thing as integrated information,” integrated information doesn’t seem even sufficient for consciousness.

Computers can possess a high amount of integrated information, but they aren’t conscious. More generally, as philosopher Ned Block points out, the integrated information theory doesn’t distinguish between intelligence, in the sense of being able to solve complex problems by integrating multiple sources of information, and consciousness, in the sense of sentience or felt awareness (phenomenal consciousness). Since integrated information doesn’t seem sufficient for consciousness—let alone identical to it—its presence or absence shouldn’t be taken as the definitive mark of whether a state is conscious or not conscious.


We also need to keep in mind the distinction between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness. To be phenomenally conscious means to be in a state of felt awareness. For example, you’re phenomenally conscious when you dream. To be access conscious means to be in a state where there is cognitive access to the contents of awareness. Most people dream throughout the night but have little cognitive access to their dreams—they don’t remember them, so they can’t report them.

 When you’re access conscious you’re able to hold the contents of awareness in memory long enough to report them and use them in your subsequent thinking. Although large-scale integration in the cortex is crucial for cognitively accessible conscious experience, it may not be crucial for every kind of phenomenal consciousness, for example, the kind of cognitively unaccessed consciousness without an object that Yoga and Vedānta believe happens in deep and dreamless sleep.

Of course, Yoga and Vedānta, as well as Tibetan Buddhism, also say that deep sleep consciousness can become cognitively accessible through meditative mental training. We’ll come back to this idea shortly.
..." End quote .

P.S.: Evan Thompson who combines certain aspects of Buddhism with cognitive science through the works of neuroscientist Francisco Varela and those of others does really deliver some fascinating and groundbreaking insights on the subject of consciousness and its brain ....and much more .
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 18:35:30 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg448021#msg448021 date=1420413907]


Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time  : Enjoy :


Sorry, Jim, the "offset dectector" is nonsense. How do you detect the atom passing through the slit without doing something to it? Heisenberg sorted this out a long time ago.

That's exactly what i thought , Alan, seriously . How can one detect anything at the quantum level at least without a detector ? lol

Quote
Suppose the offset detector was a photographic film. You do the experiment and get a result, either an interference pattern or two lines. Now toss a coin. If it comes down heads, you process the film. That is equivalent to switching on the detector, so the interference pattern you recorded (on another piece of film) must disappear and be replaced by two lines. Does it? I think not.
 

Be more specific , Alan, please .
Are you denying the very existence of the interpretation problem in QM  by denying the existence of the mystery of the double slit experiment ? I think you are .You said previously that there was no problem at all .

Shall i call the cops regarding the fact that you do continue keeping that skeleton in your closet ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448010#msg448010 date=1420408180]
(Prior note : Biological evolution can never intrinsically account for consciousness , let alone for its emergence ,function, origin or nature .consciousness could never have evolved from the biological evolution , no way , simply because consciousness is irreducible to biology and cannot have emerged from it , no way .Think about that .It makes no biological sense whatsoever to assert that : the subjective personal qualitative experiential can never rise from the quantitative non-experiential "impersonal objective " biology : they are totally different from each other in kind .Even some of your best philosophers , scientists ... cannot but agree with me on that , dlorde .Think about it .)
I have thought about it, and I find it both plausible and compellingly supported by the evidence.

Think some more about it , dlorde .
Consciousness can never rise or evolve from the biological evolution or from biology , no way (That's still the main unresolved issue in all consciousness studies by the way ) , unless one would believe in that silly absurd and paradoxical untestable emergent property theory regarding the origin emergence nature and function of consciousness , unless one would believe in the untestable and false identity theory , unless one would believe in the refuted so-called integrated information theory regarding consciousness : see the fascinating excerpt above on the subject .

Quote
Since you mention it, let's consider the evolutionary perspective. Do you consider any other animals to have some form of consciousness? Other primates? cetaceans? corvids? - creatures that display signs of self-awareness, can communicate complex ideas, understand instructions, are creative, use tools, plan ahead, have theory of mind?

Of course .The Cambridge declaration on consciousness confirmed that fact , its own way lol :

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffcmconference.org%2Fimg%2FCambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf&ei=6d2qVPWdNYqxaei_gegE&usg=AFQjCNH_ciHo4pB3uKwde-dOA7YzYRw_0w&sig2=T9STMydcsGOXC4kOKiRaqA&bvm=bv.82001339,d.d2s

Quote
Would you agree that there are degrees of consciousness among other species in the animal kingdom, with less sophisticated creatures having lesser degrees of consciousness?

Of course .Is this some kind of a test ? lol

Quote
What, in particular, do you find incredible about the evolution of consciousness?

See above : consciousness can never arise or emerge from biology : both the identity theory and the emergent property theory regarding consciousness are false and untestable .

Quote
Quote
I don't know whether or not consciousness does collapse the wavefunction .I am just inclined to agree with what Alastair Rae ,for example ,said on the subject when talking about the consciousness -based interpretation of QM.
All due respect to Rae, but the available evidence says no, and the idea on which it was based has been shown to be mistaken.

What evidence ? = a big zero .


Quote
Quote
Assume for a sec thus that consciousness is a separate non-physical and non-local process , that would solve the interpretation problem in QM
What, exactly, is a 'non-physical process'? how can it interact with the physical? how does it solve the interpretation problem?

See that specific Carter's excerpt on the subject of "the dreaded interaction problem " of substance dualism .
See also my previous comments on that , on many occasions in the previous page .

Quote
Quote
A temporary unconscious person is no synonymous of a person without consciousness .The latter is still there ,it is just 'disconnected " somehow,  from that person's physical brain and body +from the rest of his/her environment, but not totally disconnected , i presume , i don't know  .
For example ,a younger brother of mine used to do some sleep walking when we were kids .I had even to go after him during a certain night when he sleep walked out of the house to the street ...to bring him back lol
He was asleep but nevertheless , he did things like a conscious person would like opening the doors , going out , talking , walking down the street,and even eating ,drinking ...while asleep  ...

fMRI scans are even able now to detect a minimum form of consciousness in vegetative patients , not to mention that even at the level of deep dreamless or paradoxical deep sleep , some neuroscientists claim to have detected some subtle forms of consciousness .

Some Buddhist meditation experts monks ,for example ,even claim that they can train their minds to be aware or conscious of ,monitor and control their deep sleep state .

When you wake up feeling like you slept well, they claim, that means that you have remembered your calm deep sleep , i don't know .

In short : being asleep or temporary unconscious does not mean a total absence of consciousness .
That's what I call a straw herring; a straw-man combined with a red herring...

Leave the goalposts where they are - unconscious means 'not conscious'. When I talked of someone unconscious, I didn't mean asleep, or sleep-walking, or conscious but unresponsive, I meant not concsious. My point was predicated on the absence of the conscious awareness of the result of a measurement that is the criterion for the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation. Not some kind of non-physical soul or spirit. If that's what you mean, you're talking about something else entirely.

Even non-conscious or unconscious people , even people who are in deep dreamless sleep , or under anesthesia ....do retain some subtle or minimal form of awareness or consciousness : see my fascinating excerpt on the subject here above , once again .

Consciousness or awareness do never 'disappear " totally , not even at the level of unconscious people , not even at the level of people under anesthesia , not even at the level of deep dreamless sleep  .

So, your "unconscious person " example regarding the measurement problem in QM does hold no water whatsoever ,considering the above at least .

Quote
Quote
Not to mention the fact that our unconsciousness is also a part of our separate souls that can have effects on our bodies brains and environment even when we are asleep or unconscious .
Well you're on your own there. I'm not here to talk about souls, spirits, the supernatural, magic, religion, or gods, but to discuss scientific ideas about our empirical observations.

The very existence of the separate non-physical and non-local soul or consciousness , a bit like that one that was argued for by both Popper and Eccles in their co-authored "the self and its brain. .." book , is a scientific hypothesis that can be falsified ,as there is a lots of indirect empirical evidence that has been proving that above mentioned nature of consciousness .

Quote
Quote
You can't explain  the mystery of the interpretation of QM by trying to explain away the other major mystery :consciousness .See above .
I agree. That's why I'm not trying to explain either QM or consciousness, I'm just telling you that conscious collapse is untenable if it's based on Von Neumann's chain, because that isn't a correct description of the real-world situation.

When you try to prove that the conscious collapse of the wave function is untenable , you already assume that you know all there is to know about consciousness ,so, your argument does hold no water whatsoever , since we don't know much about the work of consciousness : see my excerpt above .

Quote
Quote
... there is a lots of indirect empirical evidence that has been proving that ...
You're think indirect evidence can be proof ?  ???

We can't observe the personal subjective experiences or consciousness directly ,so we can't prove their existence scientifically and directly, let alone how they work or interact with their physical brains and bodies ... .

That's why the contemplative cognitive science that combines neuroscience , psychology with first hand subjective reports through some of the contemplative and meditative ancient wisdom like that of Buddhism , that's why that sort of science through that sort of marriage is much more able to deliver some serious insights on the subject of consciousness and its brain than science alone or spirituality alone ever can .


 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Cheryl, dlorde : <... stuff ...>
You're off the deep end, Don. It's simply nonsense to claim any of that is relevant.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg447935#msg447935 date=1420325123]
For example, when you look at something or just at these lines , you instantly not only get aware and conscious of them , but you also understand them : no laws of physics alone , no brain activity alone can account for that  human ability of yours to instantly not only to be aware and conscious of these lines but to also understand them .
Well, the pathways through which they are processed in the brain have been identified, and the areas where specific steps in the identification and recognition of words have been identified, and it has been established that simple maths, and even simple contextual understanding of words & phrases occurs at a subconscious level (not to mention the more sophisticated executive functions, once thought to be purely conscious, like inhibiting automatic responses [see van Gaal, S., 'Frontal Cortex Mediates Unconsciously Triggered Inhibitory Control' - Journal of Neuroscience 30]). Also, as has been mentioned previously, specific disruptions to these brain areas and pathways cause specific deficits in understanding and awareness - as specific as failure to recognise or understand particular elements (specific words, or classes of words, or specific meanings, or numbers, or sentences but not individual words, etc). So it's pretty clear that most of this is below conscious awareness, and all of it is a matter of brain processing.

The identity theory is just an act of faith , no scientific theory as Libet said .
On the other hand , Libet's conscious mental field theory or emergent property theory ,for example, regarding the origin emergence function and nature of consciousness is also false ,since consciousness can never emerge  from biology , no way .

Consciousness can thus neither be reduced to nor equated with its  neuronal correlates or brain activity , let alone that consciousness can emerge form the latter : makes no biological sense whatsoever either .

Positivism must be extended as to include first hand subjective conscious reports and the corresponding spirituality if science wanna progress on the subject of consciousness and its brain,as the contemplative cognitive science has been doing by the way  .

Quote
Quote
Even the "ordinary " act of seeing cannot be explained just by the physiology of the biological eye and brain , no way : it's the mind that sees through the eye and brain , not the latter .
The recursive homunculus of Dennett's 'Cartesian Theatre'  is the argument you need to overcome to maintain that view. Then you'll need to account for the neurophysiology of the visual cortex, where the progressive and hierarchical processing of visual information to produce a coherent 3D model of the visual field is well established, and using models derived from the neural networks there, computer models have been product that are subject to the same visual illusions as we are. Even sensory interference illusions like the McGurk Effect have been elucidated.

Those are just the corresponding neuronal reflections of consciousness and the mind , not the latter , just the image of the process , not the process itself or its cause : correlations do not necessarily imply causation either .

Carter , for example, did talk about the fact how QM has eliminated the causal closure of the physical while replacing the classical deterministic universe by the probabilistic one , and hence has been making room ,so to speak, for the non-mechanical causation of consciousness in relation to matter brain and body through mental forces that trigger physical effects as Schwartz tried to prove .
The latter's cognitive psychology or therapy that works so succesfuly is a major proof of the latter Schwartz' assertions.


Quote
Quote
Think about it , let's talk about how you decide to hold in place certain mind states , thoughts , feelings , emotions ....while eliminating or suppressing the other competitive or rival ones in the process that do compete to grab your attention  : you do that via your own mindful volitional effort of attention through your veto power .That choice cannot be determined by the laws of physics , not entirely at least ,as the forward writer to a certain Libet's book said )I posted that earlier on ) .
See the van Gaal paper (above) for empirical evidence that's not necessarily the case.

What paper exactly ? Anyway : what you do not seem to wanna understand is that awareness or consciousness can neither be reduced to nor equated with its neuronal correlates ,and hence can also never emerge from them either .

There is no way that the quantitative "impersonal objective unexperiential " biology , neurophysiology or physics and chemistry can account for the personal subjective qualitative experiential qualia or consciousness and mind , no way .

Quote
Quote
Taking into consideration the non-mechanical causal efficacy of the mind on matter and the fact that you interpret what you see or perceive mindfully , considering all that and more , i do not see how the mind cannot have any 'disturbing and interpretative "  effects on the "observed " measurements or data , i don't know , but to assert there can be no effect is really far fetched an assertion or a denial .
That's just a problem with assuming there's non-mechanical causal efficacy of non-physical mind on matter - it leads to all manner of problems and difficulties, particularly when the empirical evidence contradicts it.

There is no empirical evidence that contradicts it .
Better still, QM seems to lend support to the non-mechanical causation of the mind by eliminating the causal closure of the physical ....
One can in fact only guess and speculate about what all that means , since we still do not know much , if anything at all, about consciousness and the mind .
Looking for the latter in the physical brain or equating the former with the latter is a futile and absurd an attempt thus .

Quote
Quote
...Thompson shows how the self is a changing process, not a static thing. When we are awake we identify with our body, but if we let our mind wander or daydream, we project a mentally imagined self into the remembered past or anticipated future. As we fall asleep, the impression of being a bounded self distinct from the world dissolves, but the self reappears in the dream state. If we have a lucid dream, we no longer identify only with the self within the dream. Our sense of self now includes our dreaming self, the "I" as dreamer. Finally, as we meditate--either in the waking state or in a lucid dream--we can observe whatever images or thoughts arise and how we tend to identify with them as "me." We can also experience sheer awareness itself, distinct from the changing contents that make up our image of the self.

Contemplative traditions say that we can learn to let go of the self, so that when we die we can witness its dissolution with equanimity. Thompson weaves together neuroscience, philosophy, and personal narrative to depict these transformations, adding uncommon depth to life's profound questions. Contemplative experience comes to illuminate scientific findings, and scientific evidence enriches the vast knowledge acquired by contemplatives."End quote.[/i]
None of that is inconsistent with the sense of self, and consciousness, being products of brain activity - in fact, the reported experiences are entirely consistent with the neuroscience of self and how it is constructed in the brain.

See above .

Thompson seems to fall  , so to speak, for the emergent property theory regarding consciousness and its brain .I can't tell for sure whether or not he indeed believes in the latter ,since i am still in the middle of exploring that fascinating book of his .

Mainstream neuroscience , for example, says that consciousness or awareness do 'disappear " totally in people under anesthesia , during deep dreamless sleep , when people are unconscious ....but the marriage between cognitive science and the contemplative and meditative sides of Buddhism says otherwise ,and hence brain activity alone or the lack thereof cannot be a sufficient condition for the presence or absence of consciousness ...or awareness ...

In other words : some subtle or higher forms of consciousness are not dependent on the brain and hence have no physical "basis " .

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Bell's theorem and its related experiments did challenge classical realism, remember ,not to mention classical determinism and classical locality too .
But not causality, so not relevant here.

Not causality ? Sure about that ? How can one explain entanglement or non-locality that challenged the classical locality or separability that used to asset that no event A can be caused by B without any physical causation  and one that should not exceed the speed of light ? Explain that "spooky action at a distance " to me and what causality is there to explain it ?
Sure as eggs is eggs. As has been said repeatedly in this very thread, nothing about entanglement or "spooky action at a distance " involves the transfer of information FTL. Causality remains intact and unthreatened.
 

Who said that entanglement involves the transfer of information ? It doesn't indeed , but nevertheless how can one explain that instantaneous "spooky action at a distance " then ? What causality is there to explain it then ?

Quote
Quote
Entanglement that has been turning the very concept of causality on its head thus ...
No.

See right above .
Entanglement does turn the very concept of causality on its head , otherwise explain to me how it occurs or what causality is there to explain it ?

Quote
Quote
How can you a -priori exclude that possibility or unknown black swan .?
No-one's excluding possibilities a-priori. You look at what is known (the existing consistently reliable framework of knowledge), and the empirical data (what observation and experiment tells you), and you draw up testable models and hypotheses that are consistent with the existing framework. All provisional. What you don't do is make up stuff you'd like to be true and try to argue that anything that contradicts it must be wrong.

Well, Let's start from what is known indeed and let's not exclude the unknown either  (we can exclude the unknown just by assuming that what we know is all there is to know or that we can predict it ,and by sticking to a certain world view while assuming it is "true", despite the overwhelming evidence against it  .) :

We know that materialism is certainly false , simply because it can intrinsically never account for consciousness , let alone explain it , let alone that materialism can account for any of all those consciousness related anomalies ,and hence the identity theory , the emergent property theory regarding consciousness , not to mention the so-called integrated information theory ...are false .
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 20:38:26 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, dlorde : <... stuff ...>
You're off the deep end, Don. It's simply nonsense to claim any of that is relevant.

It is very relevant , just try to read it : it is even fascinating and groundbreaking :
There is no way science alone can tackle the consciousness hard problem , not even by including the ordinary first hand reports of subjective experiences at the level of what can be called the sensory perceptual gross form of consciousness  , or by studying the neuronal correlates of consciousness , science has also to include the first hand subjective reports of highly experienced meditation experts who claim that consciousness or awareness do never "disappear " totally , not even in people under anesthesia , not even during deep dreamless sleep , not even in unconscious people ...

Not to mention the fact that detecting some specific brain activity or lack thereof is no sufficient condition or no sufficient proof or evidence for claiming or concluding the presence or absence of consciousness ,and hence some subtle or higher forms of consciousness or awareness are not dependent on the brain and have thus no physical "basis " either .

Not to mention that the so-called integrated information theory regarding consciousness and its brain fails to account for the broad scope of consciousness and the mind ....to say the least thus .

In other words :

Libet ,for example, was a visionary and a revolutionary enough a neuroscientist as to go beyond positivism by including the first hand subjective expériences reports as valid evidence at the level of the ordinary sensory perceptual consciousness , why not include also those of the highly experienced meditation experts then , logically  ? and see what happens .

The latter insights might turn the "brain basis " hypothesis of consciousness on its head by falsifying it , either way thus .

« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 21:07:22 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Yet we should be cautious here. The fact that you have no memory of some period of time doesn’t necessarily imply that you lacked all consciousness during that time.You might have been conscious— in the sense of undergoing qualitative states or processes of sentience or awareness—but for one reason or another not been able to form the kind of memories that later you can retrieve and verbally report.This point is familiar to scientists who study the effects of anesthetics. At certain doses, some anesthetics prevent memory formation while sparing awareness.

Gee, and why would that be since memories are not stored in the brain according to your theory? If you experienced it, if you were consciously aware of those events while they were occurring,  you should be able to remember it, according to your model of consciousness. Even if your brain becomes temporarily unable to transmit non local consciousness at some point, once its functionally properly again, the memory of any event that you consciously experienced should be completely accessible, unless:
a) memories are actually formed and stored in the brain
b) you weren't in fact conscious while those events were taking place.


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448051#msg448051 date=1420491879]


Yet we should be cautious here. The fact that you have no memory of some period of time doesn’t necessarily imply that you lacked all consciousness during that time.You might have been conscious— in the sense of undergoing qualitative states or processes of sentience or awareness—but for one reason or another not been able to form the kind of memories that later you can retrieve and verbally report.This point is familiar to scientists who study the effects of anesthetics. At certain doses, some anesthetics prevent memory formation while sparing awareness.

Gee, and why would that be since memories are not stored in the brain according to your theory? If you experienced it, if you were consciously aware of those events while they were occurring,  you should be able to remember it, according to your model of consciousness. Even if your brain becomes temporarily unable to transmit non local consciousness at some point, once its functionally properly again, the memory of any event that you consciously experienced should be completely accessible, unless:
a) memories are actually formed and stored in the brain
b) you weren't in fact conscious while those events were taking place.

Prior note : well, we could  have been  aware or conscious of of some past events without having any memory left of them , like in the case of some traumas the memory of which we could have suppressed for example or something that we forgot or did not pay enough attention to or whatever .

Psychoanalysis , for example , can help us retrieve the traumatic suppressed memories ...and overcome them by coming to terms with them .

The author of the above mentioned book was in fact just referring to the fact that people might be aware or conscious of their deep dreamless sleep state while not being able to remember it in the morning when they Wake up and say "I slept well but i did not know nothing "  .

Two different Buddhist school of thought did debate about whether or not we failed to remember our deep dreamless sleep state indeed or was that just our egos' way of inferring that we slept good after the fact, not a matter of lost memory thus  : that was a long philosophical discussion thus that was summarized by the author of the above mentioned book while giving his own opinion on the matter in favor of the school that argued for the lost memory case .

Furthermore , some Buddhist meditation experts do claim that they can train their minds as to become fully conscious and aware of their deep dreamless state and report it back through their retained memories on the subject ordinary people can never do .

That said :

It dépends on how one (mis ) interprets that through one's own a-priori held world view that does shape one's own consciousness and behavior , ironically enough lol : you're talking from the materialist point of view thus , by basing all your arguments and conclusions on that major false materialistic premise, in the sense that consciousness and the mind +their memories and the rest are just brain activity ,for example, and hence memory is stored in the brain ....

On the other hand ,as a non-materialist myself ,  i  say that memory can neither be reduced to nor equated with its neuronal correlates, let alone that memory can be stored in the brain or emerge from it via some inexplicable materialistic magic lol, the same goes for the whole consciousness and mind +their other related processes and anomalies .

It's pretty normal thus , logical and predictable,from my own non-materialist point of view at least thus , that certain forms of memory (the non-subtle ones at least and i mean by the latter , the following : some meditation experts do claim, for example, that they can train their minds as to become  aware or conscious of they being Under deep dreamless sleep and hence remember that experience of "nothingness" without object or mental images ordinary people can never access as such ) , it's pretty normal that whenever the neuronal correlates of memory are messed with , altered , damaged , suppressed or whatever , the corresponding memory "disappers " or there is no recollection or remembrance of it.




 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile

It dépends on how one (mis ) interprets that through one's own a-priori held world view that does shape one's own consciousness and behavior , ironically enough lol : you're talking from the materialist point of view thus , by basing all your arguments and conclusions on that major false materialistic premise, in the sense that consciousness and the mind +their memories and the rest are just brain activity ,for example, and hence memory is stored in the brain ....


And you're talking from the theist point of view, basing all of your arguments and conclusions on the untestable and scientifically unsubstantiated belief in souls. Your "indirect empirical evidence" is not actually any evidence at all, but simply complaints about what you feel is not adequately explained by science, and utter disregard for everything that is.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4729
  • Thanked: 156 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg448021#msg448021 date=1420413907]


Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time  : Enjoy :


Sorry, Jim, the "offset dectector" is nonsense. How do you detect the atom passing through the slit without doing something to it? Heisenberg sorted this out a long time ago.

That's exactly what i thought , Alan, seriously . How can one detect anything at the quantum level at least without a detector ? lol
Heisenberg pointed out that the least disturbing thing you can do to observe a particle is to bounce a photon off it, which must of course alter its momentum. From this, you can deduce the indeterminacy principle and Heisenberg's equation.

Quote
Quote
Suppose the offset detector was a photographic film. You do the experiment and get a result, either an interference pattern or two lines. Now toss a coin. If it comes down heads, you process the film. That is equivalent to switching on the detector, so the interference pattern you recorded (on another piece of film) must disappear and be replaced by two lines. Does it? I think not.
 

Be more specific , Alan, please .

Can't be much more specific. Jim al-K wittered on about "switching off the detector" but was very inexplicit about what he would use to detect whether an atom had passed though a slit. So I have introduced a detector that may or may not be "switched on" at the time, but neither we nor the atom can know because it may or may not be "switched on" several days later. What Heisenberg and I are getting at, is that any actual detector must interfere with the experiment in order to detect.

What happens in Jim's experiment if we have a very inefficient detector, that only picks up, say, half of the atoms that pass through slit A? Do we get a distorted interference pattern, or do 75% of the atoms go through slit B instead of 50%? It can't be the latter because that would mean that we had actually detected all the As! The more you analyse the experiment, the less meaningful it becomes, because he is starting with a macroscopic model and assuming it will work microscopically, whereas we know from hundreds of years of physics, that you can't do it backwards.
Quote



Are you denying the very existence of the interpretation problem in QM  by denying the existence of the mystery of the double slit experiment ? I think you are .You said previously that there was no problem at all .

Shall i call the cops regarding the fact that you do continue keeping that skeleton in your closet ?


There is no mystery, any more than the mystery of why apples fall downward. There's a lot of stupidity and oversimplification when people try to predict quantum effects by scaling down macroscopic observations, for exactly the same reason as you shouldn't treat an individual patient on the basis of population statistics. Statistics generalises from the particular, classical mechanics averages a huge number of quantum events. Neither process is reversible.

The skeleton in my closet is over 50 years of using quantum mechanics to explain macroscopic phenomena, and the profound knowledge that you can't predict quantum phenomena by looking at chunks of rock, or even grains of sand. You will find the same skeleton key in the toolkit of every physicist and chemist who was educated in the late 20th century - we started some 2000 years after Aristotle and 300 years after Newton, so we don't finish in the place where the pioneers of quantum mechanics began.

The behaviour of particles is a fact, not a mystery. Particles do what they do, consistently, and we have evolved appropriate mathematical models to predict what they do in different circumstances. 
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 22:26:24 by alancalverd »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Excerpt from "    WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy       ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :



I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this? Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep?
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 23:19:40 by cheryl j »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Excerpt from "    WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy       ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :
I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this? Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep?
It's a red herring - an absurd equivocation of consciousness to avoid the joke argument I made against the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation (which mistakenly maintains that wavefunction collapse occurs when someone becomes consciously aware of the result of a measurement). I suggested that an unconscious individual would not collapse the wavefunction and the entanglement would decohere by the time he came round, leaving no clear outcome under this interpretation ;)

Rather than point out the obvious flaws in the argument, he's apparently decided that you can be conscious even when completely unconscious (e.g. in a coma), and so this means you're aware enough to perceive the measurement and collapse the wavefunction...

You can draw your own conclusions.

« Last Edit: 06/01/2015 00:16:39 by dlorde »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Excerpt from "    WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy       ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :
I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this? Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep?
It's a red herring - an absurd equivocation of consciousness to avoid the joke argument I made against the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation (which mistakenly maintains that wavefunction collapse occurs when someone becomes consciously aware of the result of a measurement). I suggested that an unconscious individual would not collapse the wavefunction and the entanglement would decohere by the time he came round, leaving no clear outcome under this interpretation ;)

Rather than point out the obvious flaws in the argument, he's apparently decided that you can be conscious even when completely unconscious (e.g. in a coma), and so this means you're aware enough to perceive the measurement and collapse the wavefunction...

You can draw your own conclusions.

::)
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Prior note : well, we could  have been  aware or conscious of of some past events without having any memory left of them , like in the case of some traumas the memory of which we could have suppressed for example or something that we forgot or did not pay enough attention to or whatever .

Psychoanalysis , for example , can help us retrieve the traumatic suppressed memories ...and overcome them by coming to terms with them .


Fascinating. So where does non local consciousness hide these immaterial memories from its immaterial self?




« Last Edit: 06/01/2015 14:31:16 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448057#msg448057 date=1420497293]


Excerpt from "    WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy       ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :



I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this?


See above .

Quote
Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep?

No , no one did .

Standard or mainstream neuroscience says that consciousness vanishes whenever we go to sleep and comes back whenever we wake up , the contemplative cognitive science says otherwise : see above .

Furthermore , it seems that one can be able to remember the deep dreamless sleep state through the corresponding meditative training .

The deep dreamless sleep state that seems to be a subtle form of consciousness , believe it or not .

Memory seems to be activated even at that level ,as some neuroscientists detected,so, there is nothing that can prevent one from remembering the deep dreamless sleep if trained enough to do that  .

The deep dreamless sleep state seems also to be what can be called the "causal consciousness " in the sense that it is the "seed " for the dreaming sleeping and waking states .

Some even claim that the subtle or higher forms of consciousness are independent of the brain and hence have no "physical or brain basis "...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


Prior note : well, we could  have been  aware or conscious of of some past events without having any memory left of them , like in the case of some traumas the memory of which we could have suppressed for example or something that we forgot or did not pay enough attention to or whatever .

Psychoanalysis , for example , can help us retrieve the traumatic suppressed memories ...and overcome them by coming to terms with them .


Fascinating. So where does non local consciousness hide these immaterial memories from its immaterial self?

lol Don't be silly , Cheryl, be serious :

Can you remember your deep dreamless sleep state of last night ? No , you can't , neither can i .

The deep dreamless sleep state is some sort of subtle consciousness , some say , only highly trained people through meditation can remember it : some neuroscientists did even discover that memory gets activated at that level too , so, there is nothing that can prevents trained people from remembering their deep dreamless sleep state .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Excerpt from "    WAKING, DREAMING, BEING: Self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy       ", Chapter 8 : " Sleeping : Are we conscious in deep sleep ? " By Evan Thompson :
I must have missed a post or few. What is your point in posting all this? Did some one argue that there is no brain activity or mental activity while asleep?
It's a red herring - an absurd equivocation of consciousness to avoid the joke argument I made against the conscious collapse version of the Copenhagen interpretation (which mistakenly maintains that wavefunction collapse occurs when someone becomes consciously aware of the result of a measurement). I suggested that an unconscious individual would not collapse the wavefunction and the entanglement would decohere by the time he came round, leaving no clear outcome under this interpretation ;)

Rather than point out the obvious flaws in the argument, he's apparently decided that you can be conscious even when completely unconscious (e.g. in a coma), and so this means you're aware enough to perceive the measurement and collapse the wavefunction...

You can draw your own conclusions.

lol


See above .

Well , joke or not , your argument does hold no water whatsoever ,since consciousness or awareness never disappear totally during sleep , under anesthesia , when unconscious, when in coma ,when in vegetative states  ...

Even the deep dreamless sleep state might be a mode of consciousness , a subtle one , a "causal one " = the 'seed " of the sleeping dreaming waking states ...

That turns your joke into an ironic reversed joke lol : making a joke of your joke lol
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=alancalverd link=topic=52526.msg448021#msg448021 date=1420413907]


Watch Joy Jim at work : he explains that to you in a funny way : don't "shut up and calculate " as if there is no interpretation problem in QM , there is , big time  : Enjoy :


Sorry, Jim, the "offset dectector" is nonsense. How do you detect the atom passing through the slit without doing something to it? Heisenberg sorted this out a long time ago.

That's exactly what i thought , Alan, seriously . How can one detect anything at the quantum level at least without a detector ? lol
Heisenberg pointed out that the least disturbing thing you can do to observe a particle is to bounce a photon off it, which must of course alter its momentum. From this, you can deduce the indeterminacy principle and Heisenberg's equation.

Quote
Quote
Suppose the offset detector was a photographic film. You do the experiment and get a result, either an interference pattern or two lines. Now toss a coin. If it comes down heads, you process the film. That is equivalent to switching on the detector, so the interference pattern you recorded (on another piece of film) must disappear and be replaced by two lines. Does it? I think not.
 

Be more specific , Alan, please .

Can't be much more specific. Jim al-K wittered on about "switching off the detector" but was very inexplicit about what he would use to detect whether an atom had passed though a slit. So I have introduced a detector that may or may not be "switched on" at the time, but neither we nor the atom can know because it may or may not be "switched on" several days later. What Heisenberg and I are getting at, is that any actual detector must interfere with the experiment in order to detect.

What happens in Jim's experiment if we have a very inefficient detector, that only picks up, say, half of the atoms that pass through slit A? Do we get a distorted interference pattern, or do 75% of the atoms go through slit B instead of 50%? It can't be the latter because that would mean that we had actually detected all the As! The more you analyse the experiment, the less meaningful it becomes, because he is starting with a macroscopic model and assuming it will work microscopically, whereas we know from hundreds of years of physics, that you can't do it backwards.
Quote



Are you denying the very existence of the interpretation problem in QM  by denying the existence of the mystery of the double slit experiment ? I think you are .You said previously that there was no problem at all .

Shall i call the cops regarding the fact that you do continue keeping that skeleton in your closet ?


There is no mystery, any more than the mystery of why apples fall downward. There's a lot of stupidity and oversimplification when people try to predict quantum effects by scaling down macroscopic observations, for exactly the same reason as you shouldn't treat an individual patient on the basis of population statistics. Statistics generalises from the particular, classical mechanics averages a huge number of quantum events. Neither process is reversible.

The skeleton in my closet is over 50 years of using quantum mechanics to explain macroscopic phenomena, and the profound knowledge that you can't predict quantum phenomena by looking at chunks of rock, or even grains of sand. You will find the same skeleton key in the toolkit of every physicist and chemist who was educated in the late 20th century - we started some 2000 years after Aristotle and 300 years after Newton, so we don't finish in the place where the pioneers of quantum mechanics began.

The behaviour of particles is a fact, not a mystery. Particles do what they do, consistently, and we have evolved appropriate mathematical models to predict what they do in different circumstances.

Ask Jim about just that then .He was not the only one who suggested that .The mystery of the double slit experiment was recognized as such from the very inception of QM,from the very start thus ,  via the original double slit experiment which triggered the interpretation observation or measurement problem in QM .

The latter remains unsolved up to this date and counting .

A Nobel prize is waiting for the one (s) who would solve it ,as Jim said and rightly so .

Even Feynman used to say that " The double slit experiment is the only mystery in QM ..." ...

In short :

You're 1 of the few physicists who have been living in denial by stubbornly denying the interpretation problem in QM = by keeping that skeleton in the closet .

Calling the cops regarding the latter won't solve the problem either lol

Have fun then with your skeleton in the closet  , instead of getting it and yourself in the process out of the closet  .

There is thus no problem at all : all interpretations of QM have been just imaginary attempts to solve the imaginary interpretation problem in QM thus , just delusions based on illusions lol .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Excerpt from the same above mentioned book and chapter :

Quote : " REMEMBERING IN SLEEP:

Although Yoga and Vedānta share the view that deep sleep is a state of consciousness, they differ in their conceptions of what happens to the mind in deep and dreamless sleep.According to Yoga, deep sleep is one of the changing states of the inner mental sense, so cognitive activity, particularly the formation of memories, continues. According to Vedānta, however, the inner mental sense shuts down entirely in deep sleep and reactivates upon awakening. How does this difference between Yoga and Vedānta look from the perspective of Western sleep science?.

If we set aside the question of consciousness in deep sleep and restrict the question to whether memory processes are active, the answer from science is unequivocal: memory processes are highly active in slow-wave sleep. Evidence from psychology and neuroscience clearly shows that slow-wave sleep promotes the formation of stable memories of events that were consciously experienced earlier when awake.

One recent experiment took advantage of the strong effect of smell on memory—the way that particular smells can trigger vivid memories, the most famous example being Proust’s description of the way the smell and taste of a madeleine dipped in tea brought back to life his narrator’s long-forgotten childhood world in the French village of Combray. In the experiment, the subjects learned locations in a spatial memory task while being exposed to the scent of roses. The scent was presented again while
the subjects were in slow-wave sleep that night. Compared to the control condition where the scent wasn’t presented again during sleep, the presentation during slow-wave sleep resulted in significantly improved recall of the locations in the task on the following day.

In addition, the presentation of the scent during sleep resulted in significant activation in the hippocampus, a subcortical structure known to be crucial for the formation and recall of memories for experienced events.
This study built on other ones showing that the same neural networks in the hippocampus that are activated in the acquisition of new memories during waking life are reactivated in slow-wave sleep.

 For example, studies in rats have shown that when they learn their way in a maze, neurons in the hippocampus that fire in response to specific places—so-called hippocampal place cells—fire in the same order during subsequent slow-wave sleep, a phenomenon known as “hippocampal replay.” It’s as if the rats rerun the maze offline. More precisely, the neural networks the rats need to run the maze are repeating their waking activity patterns and thereby solidifying those patterns for future use.

Hippocampal replay is also found in humans: areas of the hippocampus that are activated when people learn a route through a virtual town in a computer game are reactivated during slow-wave sleep; in addition, the stronger the hippocampal reactivation during sleep, the better people are at remembering the route the next day.

These and other studies tell us that slow-wave sleep strengthens newly acquired memories and integrates them with older ones. Psychologists call this process “memory consolidation.”
Hippocampal replay is key in one of the main models of how memory consolidation happens in slow-wave sleep.

According to the model, the hippocampus and the neocortex (the outer layer and uniquely mammalian part of the cortex) engage in a dialogue that serves to transform new memories, which the hippocampus and neocortex hold together, into long-term memories, which the neocortex holds alone (or, according to another model, that the hippocampus and neocortex hold together in a strengthened way).
Here are the basics of how the dialogue works. There’s a flow of replay activity from the hippocampus to the neocortex, but the neocortex orchestrates the flow.

To be more specific, hippocampal replay triggers a similar replay in the neocortex, so that the same neocortical networks that were active in the acquiring of new memories are reactivated in slow-wave sleep. In this way, the hippocampus tunes the neocortex, so that new memories there are preferentially strengthened and integrated into the preexisting network of long-term memory. At the same time, the neocortex organizes the flow of replay activity into successive “frames.” This framing happens through the slow oscillation between up and down states in cortical neurons. Recall that in the up state, the neurons fire at their waking rates, whereas in the down state, they’re completely silent. Neocortical up states trigger hippocampal up states and thereby determine the successive moments at which the hippocampal replay occurs, which in turn drives the neocortical replay.

This “framing” of memory consolidation into successive momentary pulses is reminiscent of the successive “frames” in the flow of conscious waking perception discussed in chapter 2. In both cases— active perceiving and the subsequent laying down of memories—what at first sight might have looked like one continuous process turns out on closer inspection to have a discrete and periodic structure.

The so-called “hippocampal-neocortical dialogue” is an example of what neuroscientists call “active system consolidation,” the strengthening of memories by replaying them during sleep. At the neuronal level, active consolidation consists in selectively reactivating groups of neurons and thereby strengthening the synaptic connections between them.
According to Yoga, deep sleep is a state where memories are put together from subtle and subliminal mental impressions. Active memory consolidation during slow-wave sleep is a neuroscience counterpart to the Yoga view.

SEED SLEEP :

We can also find in neuroscience a counterpart to the Vedānta view that deep sleep contains the “seed” of dreaming and waking consciousness. The Advaita Vedānta philosophers Gauḍapāda and Śaṅkara describe deep sleep as “seed sleep.”

By this they mean that deep sleep is the causal source of waking and dreaming consciousness. Thus another word they use to describe it is “causal.” Deep sleep is the causal state immediately prior to dreaming or waking, and it strongly shapes how dreams and waking experiences arise. In the Vedānta framework, whereas consciousness identifies with the physical body as the self in the waking state and with the mental dream body as the self in the dream state, it identifies with a subtle “causal body” in deep and dreamless sleep.

At one level, this view of deep sleep differs considerably from the neuroscience view. For neuroscience, waking sense experience is the basis for all consciousness, which disappears in deep sleep. For Vedānta, waking and dreaming consciousness arise out of deep sleep, and the progression from deep sleep to dreaming to waking is a progression from subtler to grosser levels of consciousness and embodiment. To use an analogy from physics, for Vedānta deep sleep is a kind of “ground state” of consciousness, a lowest-energy state from which the “excited states” of dreaming and waking arise.

At another level, however, the idea that deep sleep is the ground for future experience has a strong analogue in neuroscience. It’s now well established that sleep actively promotes the ability to learn and acquire new memories in the waking state.38 In addition, slow-wave sleep may strongly affect subsequent REM sleep, the sleep stage when dreaming is most likely to occur.

 According to this idea, slow-wave sleep not only consolidates memories by replaying them, it primes memory networks for further consolidation during subsequent REM sleep, which always follows slow-wave sleep. In this way, memory replay in slow-wave sleep may shape the kinds of dreams we have as the proportion of REM to NREM sleep increases throughout the night.

Neuroscientist György Buzsáki, one of the leading researchers in the study of self-organizing brain activity, calls sleep the brain’s “default state” (not to be confused with the “default mode of brain function” discussed in chapter 10). By this he means that sleep is a self-organized state—one that emerges spontaneously without being managed or directed from outside—to which the brain always naturally returns. On the one hand, waking experience influences the way we sleep and rest; on the other hand, “After each day’s experience … the brain falls back to the default pattern to rerun and intertwine the immediate and past experiences of the brain’s owner.”

Buzsáki proposes that the self-organized processes of sleep strongly affect how the waking brain responds to the outside world. For example, every mental illness is associated with some kind of change in sleep. The sleep disorder is usually taken to result from the daily environmental interactions of the waking brain, but as Buzsáki points out, the causation probably goes the other way too: the symptoms displayed by the waking brain may result from disruptions to the brain’s default state of sleep.

In these newly emerging ideas from neuroscience we find a parallel to the older Yoga and Vedānta view that deep sleep provides the causal source for waking life and the ground in which waking life plants the seeds.

CONTEMPLATIVE SLEEP:

In juxtaposing the Indian and neuroscience conceptions of deep sleep, I’ve proceeded so far as if the Indian notion of dreamless sleep corresponds to NREM slow-wave sleep. But this correspondence is actually too simplistic. What the Indian conception of deep sleep suggests is that we need a finer taxonomy of sleep states—a taxonomy that’s not just physiological but also phenomenological, and that accommodates the ways that sleep may be culturally variable, as well as flexible and trainable through contemplative practices.

Recall that Vyāsa, in his commentary on the Yoga Sūtras, distinguishes three types of sleep— peaceful sleep, disturbed sleep, and heavy sleep. According to the cosmology that informs Yoga, these three types result from whichever of three “strands” or tendencies of material nature—called the three
guṇas—predominates in the mind-body complex. Overall, the quality of dullness or the tendency to
inactivity (tamas) dominates the mind in ordinary sleep. Sleep is heavy or stupefying when this quality isn’t modified by either of the two other qualities or tendencies. Sleep is disturbed and restless when the quality of excitation or tendency to activity (rajas) is present. And sleep is peaceful and refreshing when the quality of lightness or tendency to clarity (sattva) is present. When the Vedānta philosophers describe deep and dreamless sleep as blissful, they have deep sleep with this quality of clarity in mind.

When people are roused from NREM sleep, however, they sometimes report they’ve been thinking while they were asleep, and often they describe going around in a repetitive loop of rumination.
Although this kind of thinking probably occurs mainly in stage 2 NREM sleep, it’s also reported during awakenings from slow-wave sleep.

Philosopher Owen Flanagan, in his book Dreaming Souls: Sleep, Dreams, and the Evolution of the Conscious Mind, appeals to this finding in order to argue that there’s no such thing as dreamless sleep and hence no sleep completely lacking in consciousness.43 Contrary to the standard neuroscience view, Flanagan thinks we’re always conscious while asleep because we’re always dreaming. Dreaming, he proposes, is any conscious mental activity occurring during sleep, not just mental activity involving sensory imagery. If ruminative thinking occurring in NREM sleep counts as dreaming, and if this kind of mental activity can happen during slow-wave sleep, then all sleep stages involve dreaming and at least some degree of consciousness.

From the Indian yogic perspective, however, we need to distinguish clearly whether there’s such a thing as dreamless sleep, and whether we’re always conscious while we sleep. Yoga and Vedānta agree that consciousness is always present when we’re asleep, but this isn’t because we’re always dreaming, even if we define “dreaming” widely to mean any kind of thinking during sleep. On the contrary, what Yoga and Vedānta mean by “deep sleep” is the sleep state where there are no sensory or mental objects of awareness, that is, no images and no thoughts. Nevertheless, there is awareness, so this is a conscious state; it’s a mode of consciousness without an object. In the Yoga framework, reports of ruminative thinking upon awakening indicate a coarser or shallower sleep state—closer to the surface of thinking consciousness—with a strong quality of excitation or tendency toward movement of the mind (rajasic sleep).
Consider now the reasons that sleep and dream scientist J. Allan Hobson gives for doubting the reliability of waking reports of perseverative thinking during slow-wave sleep:

Reports of antecedent mental activity elicited following awakenings from deep sleep are rendered unreliable by the brain fog through which they must pass. … Even if the deeply sleeping brain were capable of the low-level ruminations sometimes implied by experimental reports, it is unlikely that they would survive the inertia of awakening. It may even be that the tumult of the awakening process triggers the chaotic and fragmentary mentation that is reported. And even when deep sleepers are sufficiently aroused to be interviewed, they may still generate huge slow waves in their EEGs, indicating that they are in a semistuporous state quite different from either sleeping or waking.
Indeed, they may even hallucinate, become anxious, and confabulate as if they suffered from delirium. This is precisely what happens in the night terrors of children.
Clearly, this too is a far cry from the Indian yogic conception of deep sleep.

 Neither reports of ruminative thinking nor waking hallucinatory confabulations correspond to the Yoga and Vedānta descriptions of deep sleep as a peaceful or blissful state free of mental activity and from which one awakens feeling alert and refreshed (sattvic sleep). From the Yoga perspective, what Hobson describes are sleep states strongly marked by a quality of dullness combined with mental excitation upon awakening.
My point is not at all that sleep science should refine its taxonomy using the ancient Indian notion of the three guṇas.

It’s rather that ultimately we can’t map the Indian notion of deep and dreamless sleep using already established scientific categories, especially the physiologically defined sleep stages, which, even from a scientific perspective, are now recognized as too crude to capture the moment-to moment dynamics of electrical brain activity during sleep, let alone the experiences that may be correlated with them.

Not only is the background metaphysics of the Indian view different from that of modern science, the Indian view is phenomenological, not physiological, and it’s embedded in a normative framework that understands sleep in contemplative terms. To bridge from sleep science and the neuroscience of consciousness to the Indian conception of deep and dreamless sleep, we need to view sleep as a mode of consciousness that’s trainable through meditation.

From the Yoga perspective, entering a state of blissful deep sleep on a regular basis requires leading a calm and peaceful life guided by the fundamental value of nonviolence (ahiṃsā), practicing daily meditation, and treating going to sleep and waking up as themselves occasions for meditation—for watching the mind as it enters into and emerges from sleep in order to inhibit the otherwise automatic identification with the changing states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep as the true form of the “seer” or witnessing awareness.

Thus the modern practice of yoga nidrā or “yogic sleep,” which seems to have emerged in the twentieth-century neo-Vedanta movement but traces its origin to the much older movements known as Tantra, uses breathing methods, concentration, visualization, attention to the body, and emptying the mind of images and thoughts in order to lead the waking mind into a unique state of lucid awareness at the borderland of waking and deep sleep.

One long-term effect of this practice is said to be a deep sleep state that’s peaceful and refreshing. Another effect is said to be a greater ability to witness lucidly the sleeping process and to remember qualities of sleep upon awakening.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
CONTEMPLATIVE SLEEP SCIENCE:

 
Sleep yoga drives home the point that we can’t map the Indian and Tibetan yogic conceptions of deep and dreamless sleep using already established categories from sleep science.

 These Indian and Tibetan conceptions, besides being closely tied to first-person observations of what happens to consciousness during sleep, are embedded in contemplative frameworks that aim to bring about and promote certain kinds of sleep states. Instead of trying to fit these states into a physiological scheme derived from studying the way twentieth-century Americans and Europeans sleep in the sleep lab, we need to enlarge sleep science to include contemplative ways of understanding and training the mind in sleep. This project will require that sleep scientists, sleep yogis, and contemplative scholars of the Indian and Tibetan traditions work together to map the sleeping mind. In short, we need a new kind of sleep science—a contemplative sleep science.

Consider, for example, the Tibetan Buddhist practice of seeing through the dream state, described above. In this practice, you enter the state of lucid deep sleep from the lucid dream state. Lucid dreaming, however, seems to occur mainly during “phasic” REM sleep, where there are brief and rapid increases to the already high level of cortical activity in REM sleep; in addition, lucid dreaming has been shown to be correlated with large-scale coherent gamma oscillations in the EEG. What happens to these neural patterns when one enters lucid deep sleep from the lucid dream state?

Does lucid sleep in general require this sort of large-scale gamma activity, which we also know is strongly correlated with reportable conscious awareness? Or, to put the question more abstractly, does having experiential access to the deep sleep state require the kind of informational integration that occurs when neural systems can communicate quickly over long distances in the cortex? If so, then it’s hard to see how lucid dreamless sleep could be a purely slow-wave NREM state in the canonical sleep-science sense. However, given our limited knowledge of both the neurophysiology of sleep and the neural correlates of consciousness, we can hardly assume that we know what the neural signatures of lucid awareness in deep sleep would look like. To date, there are (to my knowledge) no published scientific studies on Tibetan Buddhist dream and sleep yoga, so these kinds of questions about the relationship between lucid dreaming and lucid deep sleep point toward completely unknown territory.

Here’s a speculative thought. Perhaps consciousness in deep sleep somehow correlates with features of the up state in slow-wave sleep when neurons fire at their waking rates for about a second. At both the single-neuron level and the larger level of neuronal populations, up state dynamics strongly resemble the dynamics of the awake and activated brain. For this reason, neuroscientists describe up states in slow-wave sleep as “fragments of wakefulness” or as restoring brief moments of “micro-wakelike activity.”

 According to Tibetan Buddhism, the substrate consciousness that’s present in deep sleep is momentary in nature, that is, it exists as a continuum of discrete moments. This momentary character seems not unlike the momentary character of up states. In addition, gamma oscillations at both low (40– 80 Hz) and high (80–120 Hz) frequencies occur during up states at roughly the same time over multiple cortical areas. Although the function of gamma oscillations in slow-wave sleep is unknown, they appear to support memory consolidation. Another speculative possibility is that these gamma oscillations also correlate with the presence of a subtle conscious awareness in deep sleep, and can be affected by practicing sleep yoga.

More generally, since different parts of the brain can be in up states and down states at the same time —or to put it another way, since different neuronal networks can be “awake” and “asleep” at the same time—the neural correlates of lucid deep sleep might involve one part of the brain being “awake” while other parts are “asleep.”

Two neuroscience studies of meditation and sleep are suggestive in this regard. The first is a recent study from Giulio Tononi’s and Richard Davidson’s labs.55 They examined slow-wave sleep in highly experienced Theravada Buddhist and Tibetan Buddhist meditation practitioners, and found that the long-term meditators, compared to nonmeditators, had increased higher EEG gamma activity in a parietal-occipital region of the scalp during NREM sleep. The higher activity was positively correlated with the length of meditation training. This finding is notable because gamma-frequency electrical brain activity is a well-known neural marker of conscious cognitive processes and has also been shown to distinguish lucid dreaming from nonlucid dreaming in REM sleep.56 During NREM sleep, however, gamma activity tends to decrease, so the higher gamma activity in the meditators could reflect a capacity to maintain some level of awareness during sleep.
The second is an older study of sleep in long-term practitioners of Transcendental Meditation (TM) who reported the subjective experience of “witnessing” during sleep.57 In TM this experience is conceptualized as a “higher state of consciousness” where you feel a quiet and peaceful awareness during sleep and wake up feeling refreshed. In this study, three groups were compared—long-term practitioners, short-term practitioners, and individuals with no TM experience. The main finding was that the long-term practitioners showed a unique EEG pattern during slow-wave sleep, with theta and alpha activity present during stages 3 and 4, as well as decreased skeletal muscle activity as measured by the electromyograph (EMG). Although we can’t draw clear conclusions about what these distinctive physiological patterns mean, including whether they’re due to TM practice or some other cause, the authors of the study interpret them as supporting the presence of a different kind of slow-wave sleep state in individuals who report witnessing of sleep.

A few other studies have examined whether meditation practices are associated with altered sleep patterns in long-term practitioners compared to nonpractitioners.58 One study found that experienced practitioners of TM and other forms of yoga meditation showed significantly higher levels of the hormone melatonin, which regulates the sleep-wake cycle and is produced by the pineal gland, immediately following a nighttime period of meditation, compared to the same time after not meditating. Although the physiological pathway by which this increase happens is unknown, the finding suggests that these types of meditation practices can affect basic physiological processes underlying the sleep-wake cycle.

Two other studies found that both experienced Theravada Vipassanā meditation practitioners and experienced practitioners of a yogic breathing method called Sudarshan Kriya Yoga showed a significantly larger amount of slow-wave sleep in their sleep cycles compared to the amount in control subjects of the same age across all age groups from thirty to sixty years old.60 Although the amount of time spent in slow-wave sleep decreases considerably with age, the middle-aged group of experienced meditators showed the same amount of slow-wave sleep as the younger age group. In addition, the Vipassanā practitioners showed significantly more REM sleep as well as a higher number of sleep cycles through all five stages (NREM stages 1–4 and REM sleep) than did the nonpractitioners across all age groups.

In short, yoga and Vipassanā meditation practices seem to be associated with a host of changes to sleep physiology, so it’s not unreasonable to speculate that these meditation practices may also be associated with changes to other sleep-related phenomena, such as learning and memory consolidation, as well as health.

Although these last three studies focused on the potential effects of meditation on sleep physiology, they didn’t use contemplative mental training as a way to investigate consciousness and its physiological correlates in sleep. This further step is needed to create a contemplative sleep science and to connect Western science to the Indian and Tibetan contemplative frameworks for understanding sleep.

One benefit of a contemplative sleep science is that it could offer a new approach to the guiding question of this chapter—whether deep and dreamless sleep qualifies as a mode of consciousness.

Consider the following testable working hypothesis: in highly experienced practitioners of sleep and dream yoga, we should observe a closer relation between subjective reports of phenomenal qualities of sleep and various objective physiological measures (not just of the brain but also of the rest of the body).

 If highly experienced sleep yogis were able to provide reports upon awakening about their experience of the state they call deep and dreamless sleep, and if sleep scientists were able to relate these reports to fine-grained features of sleep physiology and to familiar aspects of the neural correlates of consciousness, then we would have new evidence from experimental science that deep and dreamless sleep—at least in certain individuals—is a mode of phenomenal consciousness, some of whose qualities can be made accessible to verbal report." End quote
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, dlorde , alancalverd :

See my replies to your posts here above my new posted excerpts .

Cheryl, dlorde :

The purpose behind posting the above displayed excerpts is to show you how science can tackle the consciousness hard problem and its physical brain by not only including the ordinary first hand reports of subjective experiences at the level of the ordinary sensory perceptual consciousness as valid evidence ,as Libet did in his work , for example , but  also  by  including the first hand reports of the subjective experiences of highly experienced meditation practitioners as valid evidence as well in what can be called the contemplative cognitive science through the works of Francisco Varela , through that of Richard Davidson and others .

Contemplative cognitive science that 's a kind of marriage between cognitive science and some aspects of the contemplative and meditative Buddhism ...

P.S.: I do not necessarily have to agree with all the content of the above displayed excerpts though . They do not necessarily reflect all my own views on the subject , although i do agree with many allegations and views of the author of the book , Evan Thompson .
« Last Edit: 06/01/2015 19:11:36 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length