First evidence for higher state of consciousness found

originally posted by: luthier
And thus the lack of understanding.

You obviously don't understand PCI or other entropy indices.

How can you say studying the mind in this condition, has no relevance or usefulness? The implications for understanding over sensory disorders alone are huge.

PCI doesn't measure 'mind'. It measures, among other things, neuronal activation and whether that activation is correlatable with other neuronal activity. It's why you see them using Lempel-Ziv.

It is, among other things, a measure of how active brain tissue is, and how much of that activity appears to be independent. But that would also be true if you just used meth, or Adderall, or if you somehow just turned on a lot of brain functions that your supervisory systems had judged were not contributing useful input.

And thus, when you're on hallucinogens, you are often having, by definition, visual, auditory, and proprioceptive hallucinations. The input is not real. Because you are both manufacturing noise inputs and processing them with poorly determined thresholds. The walls aren't really bleeding or breathing or generating spinning mandalas. But it does switch on a lot of processing that's not relevant. And that jacks up the entropy indices.

That and it already has case studies available of uses in therapy.

Perhaps - but that's not a case for 'higher consciousness'.

a reply to: Bedlam

It certainly is a case for higher consciousness.

And again your argument is that they a using a definition for consciousness not currently accepted? Is that correct?

a reply to: vinifalou

I wonder what a scan of a monks brain meditating would look like?

That, to me, is a far more desirable and higher state of mind .. Perhaps not "more" activity, but activity that's exponentially more focused and in tune

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

Judging by their last studies I would say mixed feedback but hardly close to a majority saying it's nonsense like you are.

It's not nonsense, I just question their methodology and conclusions. And experimental design. It's shoddy work, and the only conclusion you can honestly draw from the data is 'hallucinogens are stimulants'.

They didn't even TRY to determine what other chemical inputs might also increase PCI over baseline, for example. Whether simply being shown a complex diagram got the same sorts of responses. Or listening to Moby over Streisand. Or playing chess vs watching TV. The issue is that entropy indices don't measure consciousness exactly, they measure brain processing activity. That CAN sort of correlate to 'consciousness' in that if you're tranked unconscious, you won't be doing a lot of them.

But entropy indices don't tell you that you're being creative, or cognitive, just that your brain is using processing bandwidth.

Yes, you won't process if you're propofoled out of your gourd. But that doesn't mean that higher numbers than baseline are indicating USEFUL processing, just MORE processing.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

It certainly is a case for higher consciousness.

And again your argument is that they a using a definition for consciousness not currently accepted? Is that correct?

Geez, how much do I have to do this? They are measuring it using several different entropy indices, and their thesis is that if these are low when you're sedated, then higher numbers than baseline MUST indicate higher levels of consciousness.

That's not a subsequent assumption. You can't validly draw that conclusion. It's sort of like saying your computer doesn't draw much power when it's in sleep mode, but that when it's on the screen saver, it draws THIS many Watts. But if I run a nonsense program, it draws MORE, so that must mean the computer is performing better.

originally posted by: TheCentristPhilosopher
a reply to: vinifalou

I wonder what a scan of a monks brain meditating would look like?

That, to me, is a far more desirable and higher state of mind .. Perhaps not "more" activity, but activity that's exponentially more focused and in tune

THAT might be a valid sort of thing to build an index for. Or, a philosopher when he's contemplating some truth. Or a physicist doing some deep thinking about the nature of GR. But I bet you money you can get increased PCIs by giving someone meth, or caffeine.

a reply to: Bedlam

So in your opinion if you studied the imagery from this studies neuroscans and corraborated with psychology clinical studies showing patients walkin through memories they didn't have access to otherwise is not a possible example of let's say elevated consciousness, heck let's say a useful therapy tool using altered consciousness

a reply to: Bedlam

The brain scans have been done for monks years ago, they have done them with people of different levels of meditational expirience as well with different back rounds.


Are you going to accuse me of being a meditator too?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

So in your opinion if you studied the imagery from this studies neuroscans and corraborated with psychology clinical studies showing patients walkin through memories they didn't have access to otherwise is not a possible example of let's say elevated consciousness, heck let's say a useful therapy tool using altered consciousness

It might indicate better hippocampal function. That doesn't mean it's 'elevated'.

I'm not saying drunk/high might not be a useful therapy tool for anxiety. It's just not valid to say "if you're doggo on desflurane, your PCI is x, if you're wide awake, your PCI is y, and ----> therefore -----> if you are on BZ and your PCI scores are higher, even if you're drooling and trying to stab the demon with a knife, you are 'more conscious'.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

The brain scans have been done for monks years ago, they have done them with people of different levels of meditational expirience as well with different back rounds.


Are you going to accuse me of being a meditator too?

I'm accusing you of a paper tiger. Meditating monks aren't relevant to the discussion. Other than that you may note they're not on hallucinogens.

a reply to: Bedlam

I think you don't understand the differences of different "highs"

We aren't talking about morphine.

We are talking about a specific drug that effects people mind in a controlled psychosis like no other.

I think your being pretty dense.

Some of the studies indicate unlocking entire memories visually, and then feeling a sense of peace that lasted after the expirience. Never needing another dose again after.

Of that is not useful or interesting I don't know what is.

Sure seems to fit psychological definition of elevated consciousness which is the only one that matters when discussing psychology.

Useful back-to-the-point for a few hours from now:

1) hallucinating isn't necessarily a big improvement in consciousness
2) you have to admit, if you hallucinating, it's not real input
3) if you are dealing with false input, then it's unlikely to contribute to mentation in a constructive way
4) the paper uses entropy indices in ways that are not advisable, useful, or proven to be accurate
5) increases in PCI or other entropy indices generally indicate more mental activity, but don't actually screen for the validity or usefulness of that mental activity
6) therefore it's invalid to say "higher pci scores = higher consciousness"
7) the authors didn't even try to establish whether other 'non conscious heightening' meds ALSO increased PCI
8) this group of authors often attempts to substantiate the 'consciousness heightening' functions of hallucinogens, and may be doing advocacy science

Ta. I'm off to see the elephant.

a reply to: Bedlam

The relevance would be comparing brain scans correct?

As well as clinical examples in psychology?

originally posted by: luthier
I think your being pretty dense.

I think you're mixing a lot of unrelated studies and flip flopping amongst them like a beached bass when cornered.

You're shoving the goal posts around so fast they're starting to heat from the atmospheric friction.

Why not pick one, and stick with it instead of embracing the disingenuousness of leaping back and forth?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

The relevance would be comparing brain scans correct?

As well as clinical examples in psychology?

So, you're going to try to goal post leap to anything involving a brain scan?

Are there PCI indexes involved? Or any other entropy index? Or are you just flip flopping to any topic with 'brain scan' in in order to try to come out on top? The topic, one you've abandoned, is whether hallucinogens cause "higher states of consciousness".

a reply to: Bedlam

Can't wait to compare this with the peer review!

Should support everything you say if your not full of it.

a reply to: Bedlam

Ahh playing fast and loose with the relevance of meditation and higher consciousness...

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

Can't wait to compare this with the peer review!

Should support everything you say if your not full of it.

I'll be surprised if it doesn't. The use of entropy indices the way they are is totally unfounded.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

Ahh playing fast and loose with the relevance of meditation and higher consciousness...

Playing fast and loose with the topic so that you can't be pinned down. I'm sure if you rove about the entire #ing topic of psychology, you can find something with 'brainscan' in that isn't relevant at all.

Really, man, come back to earth. The topic is - do hallucinogens create 'higher levels of consciousness'.

a reply to: Bedlam

If it doesn't pan out for you will you be ok?

This is simply an agnostic view I have so either way is fine with me.

I think your really very off with your assumptions and don't understand the paper but hey by tomorrow we will know. Should already be rebuttals coming in.