It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mind Control Scientists Claim Ability To Turn Off Consciousness

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

There is a difference between consciousness, i.e. the state of ones wakefulness or lack thereof, and ones ability to be conscious whilst awake, that is, not only awake physically, but capable of cogitating on ones position in the world, the worlds position in the universe, and so on.

Just because these researchers have managed to find a point in the brain, where applied current can cause the subject to pass out, does not equate to having found the centre of consciousness, in the wider and most enigmatic sense. Researchers now know how to place a mind in standby mode, but they do not know how consciousness as it pertains to sentience comes into being.




posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The ability to control people covertly seems to have always been the end goal of those in charge of the masses, and scientists are just their pawns.
I choose to believe that greed and corruption can never trump good. When the earth becomes too imbalanced with self-serving interests, it will reset itself.

If the mind is the center of ones' soul, how will science explain the intense aching in a persons heart after the loss of a loved one? Some kind of chemical imbalance?

I don't think science will ever truly understand humanity. I think it's more important to know how to control people- how to turn the masses into robots for those at the highest levels.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:41 AM
link   
There's an issue of semantics arising in this thread. A scientist classifies consciousness as the conscious awareness of the individual. In this sense, they absolutely have found that consciousness is dependent on the brain.

Some people here really don't like that notion, and/or feel that consciousness is beyond our conscious awareness. Perhaps it's beyond individual awareness to these people? IDK, but as far as I can tell, you don't have to be consciously aware to be drunk, stumble around, sleep walk, and what have you. So the counters I'm hearing aren't really all too sound.

Best I can tell all phenomena of consciousness resides in the brain. I'm more interested in the subconscious, and unconscious. Conscious awareness is the boring stuff, imo.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

If they were looking for it intentionally, then that would be mind control. However, they were experimenting with the goal of finding the origin of the woman's seizures and uncovered a curious phenomena. That doesn't make Mohamad Koubeissi a mind control scientist. It makes him a neuroscientist investigating epilepsy, as is his focus, who happened to stumble upon a hypothesis that specific portion of the brain may be the host for consciousness.

www.gwdocs.com...



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Every conscious being has the ability to turn off consciousness.

It's called death.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Just have your doctor prescribe a thousand mg of depakote a day, that can shut down consciousness. You can drive without consciousness, but you can't get to where you are supposed to go very easily.
Don't be asking me any questions about how I know this.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

The crucial aspect here, is that this study cannot be said to have located the part of the brain responsible for consciousness. Whether consciousness is centred in the brain matter or not, merely being able to knock a human being out with direct electrical manipulation does not prove a god damned thing, because consciousness is about more than whether one is asleep or awake.

It is about the ability of the mind to comprehend the situation it finds itself in, to conceptualise the meaning of sensory input, not just the ability to receive input.

For the study to be useful, the experiment should have focused upon trying to keep the subject technically awake, while not conscious of the fact, and that has not happened at all. I do not accept the idea that this study has found out anything other than how to switch a person off and on at will, and those are separate issues. It is not semantics. Science, no matter what kind one is thinking about, is a subject which requires attention to absolutely minuscule detail. Therefore distinctions like this are totally core, with regard to any study this important.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: pl3bscheese

The crucial aspect here, is that this study cannot be said to have located the part of the brain responsible for consciousness. Whether consciousness is centred in the brain matter or not, merely being able to knock a human being out with direct electrical manipulation does not prove a god damned thing, because consciousness is about more than whether one is asleep or awake.

It is about the ability of the mind to comprehend the situation it finds itself in, to conceptualise the meaning of sensory input, not just the ability to receive input.


The guy was knocked out. How is this not losing consciousness? I think you're over-complicating this. It's bizarre the intellectualization going on in this thread. Leave it be.


For the study to be useful, the experiment should have focused upon trying to keep the subject technically awake, while not conscious of the fact, and that has not happened at all. I do not accept the idea that this study has found out anything other than how to switch a person off and on at will, and those are separate issues. It is not semantics. Science, no matter what kind one is thinking about, is a subject which requires attention to absolutely minuscule detail. Therefore distinctions like this are totally core, with regard to any study this important.


Ah, so this is definitely semantics here. You're understanding of the "science" does not jive with my understanding of the science. This isn't a philosophical debate. What you're asking is for someone to go from having high conscious awareness, to low conscious awareness. It's a matter of degree, not all or nothing in the way you describe it. Quite simply, to be awake is to be conscious. You're mistaken.
edit on 4-7-2014 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

What do you mean, by intellectualisation? It's medical science, neurophysiology to be precise. To even discuss this subject is an intellectual exercise!

Look, a person can be awake, but not conscious. There are drugs out there, like scopolamine, which can eradicate a persons self determination, and wipe their minds of everything that happens while they are under the influence of that chemical.

Therefore, it stands to reason, that there is more to this consciousness issue than whether a person is asleep or awake, otherwise people who are awake would ALWAYS be conscious, and that is not the case.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I mean, Intellectualization .

You can claim it's this or that, but it's not science. If you're awake, you're conscious, bud. You're either describing someone who isn't conscious, or someone who loses aspects of cognitive functioning in the process of being on the drug, or after the fact.

I challenge you to show me an article, video... any material which shows someone being "awake, but not conscious". Good luck finding that one!



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

SLEEPWALKING!

Need I actually say any more than that?

People have sleepwalked, driven cars, taken the dog for a walk, made sandwiches, made phone calls, all of which they did utterly unconsciously, despite appearing to be awake. Do you REALLY want citations on that?



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Erm, SLEEPwalking. Guess what sleep is? The absence of being awake. I can't believe you really don't understand this!!




Sleepwalking, also known as Somnambulism, is a condition in which a sleeping person exhibits behaviors associated with being awake, appears to be awake but is actually still sleeping.
Sleepwalking

Just WOW, man. You really don't get this!!
edit on 4-7-2014 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: pl3bscheese

Yes...

These people were mentally unconscious, and physically awake.

If they were not, they would merely have been straight up asleep. The existence of sleep walking as a phenomenon of neurophysiology, means that merely being able to knock someone out with electrodes is NOT proof of anything.

When the research done, delves into the precise difference between being physically awake, communicative, and capable, which one can do as part of sleepwalking, and actual consciousness, which is a whole other can of worms, THEN it's results will have some merit.

Until then, this study is just a series of glorified taser shots to the brain.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Buddy, you're fighting yourself here. Be honest with yourself. Appearing is not being. They were not awake. Game over.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Here I thought I'd post the abstract from the paper itself.


The neural mechanisms that underlie consciousness are not fully understood. We describe a region in the human brain where electrical stimulation reproducibly disrupted consciousness. A 54-year-old woman with intractable epilepsy underwent depth electrode implantation and electrical stimulation mapping. The electrode whose stimulation disrupted consciousness was between the left claustrum and anterior-dorsal insula. Stimulation of electrodes within 5 mm did not affect consciousness. We studied the interdependencies among depth recording signals as a function of time by nonlinear regression analysis (h2 coefficient) during stimulations that altered consciousness and stimulations of the same electrode at lower current intensities that were asymptomatic. Stimulation of the claustral electrode reproducibly resulted in a complete arrest of volitional behavior, unresponsiveness, and amnesia without negative motor symptoms or mere aphasia. The disruption of consciousness did not outlast the stimulation and occurred without any epileptiform discharges. We found a significant increase in correlation for interactions affecting medial parietal and posterior frontal channels during stimulations that disrupted consciousness compared with those that did not. Our findings suggest that the left claustrum/anterior insula is an important part of a network that subserves consciousness and that disruption of consciousness is related to increased EEG signal synchrony within frontal–parietal networks.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I take it from the stars given to the member I was debating that at least one other person believes the same as him. I extend the challenge to other members to present evidence that people can be, "awake, but not conscious".

If I'm incorrect, so be it, but the science I've seen does not jive with this.




Each night people go through several cycles of non-REM and REM sleep. Sleepwalking (somnambulism) most often occurs during deep, non-REM sleep (stage 3 or stage 4 sleep) early in the night. If it occurs during REM sleep, it is part of REM behavior disorder and tends to happen near morning.

Link




1
: to cease sleeping
2
: to become aroused or active again
3
: to become conscious or aware of something
Link

If people can't discern a zombie sleeper, they have no place acting as if they understand the "science".

Here, this gives a more detailed view of various Parasomnia

Explained exactly as I originally stated. Either some areas of cognition are present, yet later forgotten, else they merely appear awake, yet are truly asleep. If you're sleepwalking, you're jumbling your words. If you're having a conversation that requires cognition, you're obviously awake to a degree, yet don't consolidate the memory into long-term recall after awaking later in the day. You likely fall asleep before this process can occur. Briefly awake, then back to sleep. You say each distinction is crucial, I agree, but you are lumping many things into one.


edit on 4-7-2014 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: 727Sky
It just seems to early for them to be so smugly proud and pontifical about their findings when there are several other aspects that could muddy the picture they are looking at, quite considerably.



originally posted by: NthOther
Probably not. I think their enthusiasm stems from the subtext of the article: (perceived) validation of positivism/materialism (i.e., "God is dead", that whole thing). The language they use is a dead giveaway:



Anil Seth, who studies consciousness at the University of Sussex, UK, warns that we have to be cautious when interpreting behaviour from a single case study. The woman was missing part of her hippocampus, which was removed to treat her epilepsy, so she doesn't represent a "normal" brain, he says.

Source


Koubeissi thinks that the results do indeed suggest that the claustrum plays a vital role in triggering conscious experience.

Source


Most of these involve changes of wakefulness as well as consciousness but not this time, says Seth. "So even though it's a single case study, it's potentially quite informative about what's happening when you selectively modulate consciousness alone."

Source

A lot of the philosophical bias comes directly from 'activist post' and not from the scientists themselves. The scientists do offer some speculative comments, but nothing on the level that some ATS'rs are suggesting. I certainly saw no 'pontificating' or smugness in actual quotes.

Why whenever scientists do work in the areas of consciousness or NDEs do they get panned whenever they don't come back with a result that validates people's spiritual beliefs? Let them get on with their work.



posted on Jul, 4 2014 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinke

Why whenever scientists do work in the areas of consciousness or NDEs do they get panned whenever they don't come back with a result that validates people's spiritual beliefs? Let them get on with their work.

Their "work", in this case, is apparently figuring out how to turn human beings on and off like machines.

Forgive us if we're a little concerned about their motivation and sense of morality.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

I can confirm, I have drank half a fifth of whiskey



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Pinke

I'm not that concerned about science failing to validate my faith.

The RELIGION OF SCIENTISM has shown itself to be a gross fraud for a couple hundred years or so already.

THE TRUTH about scientific topics and the rest of reality will be clear in due course.

And, as the Manual says . . . nothing that is hidden will remain hidden in terms of goings on between persons etc.

Time will tell.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join