First evidence for higher state of consciousness found

a reply to: Bedlam

Oh so the genetic falacy. They are well known to study hallucinogens.

OK Jeff Sessions settle down. Scientists specialize.

Do you understand the references to other studies it's also located on this study.

This isn't out of thin air. This is in conjunction with other studies in different fields like psychology. Where the meaning of the scans and practice and treatment is done.

originally posted by: elysiumfire

Your response to me was simply an agreement to what I stated. You could have simply wrote..."I agree."

"My point exactly" isn't the same? Picky, picky.

originally posted by: luthier

Which monks. In what country. I can point to several that use drugs...in their culture they do not call them drugs.

Weren't we talking about Buddhist monks? And do they reach enlightenment with hallucinogens? It's a koan I seem to have missed. Before dope, chop wood, draw water, after dope, chop wood, draw water was a saying I didn't hear.

In a once in a lifetime situation, to deal with spirits (they have a shamanic culture as well), etc.

Odd, I have always been told Buddhist monks don't have a religious aspect - no ghosts, spirits etc. Not that it seems to be true in real life, the Buddhists I know all believe in various semi-traditional religious trappings like demons, hell etc.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

Oh so the genetic falacy. They are well known to study hallucinogens.

OK Jeff Sessions settle down. Scientists specialize.

What in hell are you on about? These particular scientists are in a group that has a bent on studying this sort of thing. It's not unusual for that sort of study to come to *ahem* conclusions that back their beliefs. Finding what a particular group of scientists are about is a part of reading a paper for understanding - along with finding who paid for the study and what not. It's a part of not being led astray by a paper, or group of papers, written by one set of publishers.

When you get one group of scientists who constantly publish on one thing or set of things, you get the impression it's an advocacy paper, much as if they were PETA publishing papers on the evils of eating meat, or the Tobacco Science Foundation publishing on the joys of smoking.

It may be that everyone thinks PCI is an infallible index of 'consciousness'. But it may be that it doesn't measure 'consciousness' at all, or that it's not the sort of thing you can interpolate past 'awake' with any degree of accuracy.

But, have at it guys, it's once more time to hit the sack. Adieu.

a reply to: Bedlam

Ahh more ignorance on your part.

a reply to: Bedlam

Oh. So you don't think other scientists will discredit them by majority because all scientists are tripping I get it. Good logic. Or is it big pharma backing them because they are excited about a drug people use once or twice in their life. I get it.

Again this isn't the only study or research group.

Bedlam:

The authors haven't shown that PCI is relevant in showing that being on hallucinogens is more 'conscious'

They are not saying that hallucinogens make one 'more' conscious' they are saying that PCI is raised because there is a wider field of neuronal activity. Not just wider, but with a higher frequency of firing...hence the use of the word 'elevated'. What they mean by this is that neuronal areas that are normally dampened during normal wakeful consciousness are activated by the hallucinogens at the same time as the neuronal areas for normal level consciousness. The brain has to transcode extra stimuli it would normally ignore from those hallucinogen-activated areas, but also the normal areas that are affected by the presence of the hallucinogen. Which is why perception experience whilst on a hallucinogen is trippy.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

Ahh more ignorance on your part.

Right.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Bedlam:

The authors haven't shown that PCI is relevant in showing that being on hallucinogens is more 'conscious'

They are not saying that hallucinogens make one 'more' conscious' they are saying that PCI is raised because there is a wider field of neuronal activity. Not just wider, but with a higher frequency of firing...hence the use of the word 'elevated'. What they mean by this is that neuronal areas that are normally dampened during normal wakeful consciousness are activated by the hallucinogens at the same time as the neuronal areas for normal level consciousness. The brain has to transcode extra stimuli it would normally ignore from those hallucinogen-activated areas, but also the normal areas that are affected by the presence of the hallucinogen. Which is why perception experience whilst on a hallucinogen is trippy.

Even with this great and simple explanation he won't understand because this guy must have a rock instead of a brain. Never saw someone more ignorant EVER.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
Bedlam:

The authors haven't shown that PCI is relevant in showing that being on hallucinogens is more 'conscious'

They are not saying that hallucinogens make one 'more' conscious' they are saying that PCI is raised because there is a wider field of neuronal activity. Not just wider, but with a higher frequency of firing...hence the use of the word 'elevated'. What they mean by this is that neuronal areas that are normally dampened during normal wakeful consciousness are activated by the hallucinogens at the same time as the neuronal areas for normal level consciousness. The brain has to transcode extra stimuli it would normally ignore from those hallucinogen-activated areas, but also the normal areas that are affected by the presence of the hallucinogen. Which is why perception experience whilst on a hallucinogen is trippy.

Exactly which is where the therapy aspect comes in.

The case studies of people able to unlock ptsd trauma is pretty interesting. As well as walk people through the dieing process so they can live a few extra months without worry.

Again this is not a a multi use thing. People are not getting bags of mushrooms to go hiking with.

They get a controlled dose and have a psychotherapist walk them through parts of the mind that may be "damaged" or non comunicative normally. It's not script you keep taking.

It's trying to unlock consciousness that is normally locked. Created by the psyche as you constitute your personal reality.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
They are not saying that hallucinogens make one 'more' conscious' they are saying that PCI is raised because there is a wider field of neuronal activity. Not just wider, but with a higher frequency of firing...hence the use of the word 'elevated'.

Actually, it's hard to escape the implication.

"These measures of signal diversity robustly index levels of propofol sedation and sleep stages when applied to spontaneous electrophysiological recordings. As with the PCI studies, these measures were reliably higher for conscious than for unconscious conditions."

So, they try to establish "PCI = low, is the same as less conscious states" Hard to deny.

originally posted by: vinifalou

Even with this great and simple explanation he won't understand because this guy must have a rock instead of a brain. Never saw someone more ignorant EVER.

Please, point out the error. Exactly point it out. I'll wait.

Note that not agreeing with you is not ignorance. If you can't point out an exact error, you'll have to admit you are the one at fault. I'll wait.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: elysiumfire
They are not saying that hallucinogens make one 'more' conscious' they are saying that PCI is raised because there is a wider field of neuronal activity. Not just wider, but with a higher frequency of firing...hence the use of the word 'elevated'.

Actually, it's hard to escape the implication.

"These measures of signal diversity robustly index levels of propofol sedation and sleep stages when applied to spontaneous electrophysiological recordings. As with the PCI studies, these measures were reliably higher for conscious than for unconscious conditions."

So, they try to establish "PCI = low, is the same as less conscious states" Hard to deny.

Oh my. Seriously.

Now you don't understand control references?

originally posted by: luthier

Oh my. Seriously.

Now you don't understand control references?

Sure I do. You don't understand that they're blatantly stating that PCI is related to "level of consciousness" here? But without any ability to prove that PCI is relevant in people being dosed with hallucinogens?

Their entire paper is based on this crappy assumption that hallucinogens = sort of an anti-propofol.

Do you even have the foggiest notion of what a control is? This certainly isn't relevant to a control reference in any way.

PCI *may* be relevant to normal mentation. It's the maguffin here. They're handwaving that it's applicable to measuring "higher than baseline consciousness levels". That's not at all proven.

Bedlam:

Actually, it's hard to escape the implication.

There is no implication, they are discussing two very different states...the clue is in the last sentence: "As with the PCI studies, these measures were reliably higher for conscious than for unconscious conditions"...so they are not talking about the same conditions as those presented when an hallucinogen has been ingested.

Let me ask you a question, if I may. How do you think an hallucinogen affects the brain during normal 'baseline' consciousness?

a reply to: Bedlam

OK. Well tomorrow the entire science community should support your beliefs. In fact I will log in to nature right now and check...

Nice try bud,..your categoricaly false in your "entire premise of the research"

So your opinion is that they have created a new definition of consciousness in neuroscience and psychology and then used it to qualify their results?

That would be bad,..and glaringly obvious. They should already be getting hammered by every university in the country.

Especially because there is very little money involved.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
...the clue is in the last sentence: "As with the PCI studies, these measures were reliably higher for conscious than for unconscious conditions"

Right. That's the setup for their leap in assumption - they then proceed to state that since hallucinogens cause higher PCI scores then they correlate to 'higher levels of consciousness' , to wit:

"Thus, it is valuable to consider the behaviour of these measures collectively, when characterising signal diversity.

Functional MRI-based measures of entropy have previously been found to be greater in the psychedelic state than in normal waking consciousness and this effect has been related, both theoretically and empirically to the phenomenal qualities of the psychedelic state. "

...so they are not talking about the same conditions as those presented when an hallucinogen has been ingested.

See the above. It's the very basis for the paper.

Let me ask you a question, if I may. How do you think an hallucinogen such as '___' or '___' affect the brain during normal 'baseline' consciousness?

I suspect that a lot of what you are getting is lowering of thresholds which would repress inputs from various brain functions like pattern matching. So with hallucinogens on board, you are more likely to have more secondary brain functions kicking in more inputs than they normally would. Thus, on hallucinogens you would get more brain tissue more active than baseline, because in a normally operating brain these inputs would be moderated. And up goes the PCI. This doesn't mean that the inputs presented are relevant, or useful.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Bedlam

OK. Well tomorrow the entire science community should support your beliefs.

So your opinion is that they have created a new definition of consciousness in neuroscience and psychology and then used it to qualify their results?

My opinion is that they have misused an index by extrapolating beyond the limits where it's relevant, because they are partisan in this particular field, based on other papers involving the authors.

That would be bad,..and glaringly obvious.

Wait for the feedback.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: elysiumfire
...the clue is in the last sentence: "As with the PCI studies, these measures were reliably higher for conscious than for unconscious conditions"

Right. That's the setup for their leap in assumption - they then proceed to state that since hallucinogens cause higher PCI scores then they correlate to 'higher levels of consciousness' , to wit:

"Thus, it is valuable to consider the behaviour of these measures collectively, when characterising signal diversity.

Functional MRI-based measures of entropy have previously been found to be greater in the psychedelic state than in normal waking consciousness and this effect has been related, both theoretically and empirically to the phenomenal qualities of the psychedelic state. "

...so they are not talking about the same conditions as those presented when an hallucinogen has been ingested.

See the above. It's the very basis for the paper.

Let me ask you a question, if I may. How do you think an hallucinogen such as '___' or '___' affect the brain during normal 'baseline' consciousness?

I suspect that a lot of what you are getting is lowering of thresholds which would repress inputs from various brain functions like pattern matching. So with hallucinogens on board, you are more likely to have more secondary brain functions kicking in more inputs than they normally would. Thus, on hallucinogens you would get more brain tissue more active than baseline, because in a normally operating brain these inputs would be moderated. And up goes the PCI. This doesn't mean that the inputs presented are relevant, or useful.

TextAnd up goes the PCI. This doesn't mean that the inputs presented are relevant, or useful.

And thus the lack of understanding.

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.

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

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.