LimbicLoser

I was trying to run down some information of such similar cases, but have not had time to do a good job. I was kind of thinking lucid dreaming; without the control that is often reported. It might also be thinkable that the 'I opened my eyes' part is the hitch; that may have been the lucid part which had been interpreted through the orbital frontal area as 'real time.' If I may here, I often find problems with meditation reports. If the mind had been closed down except for the primary auditory region and its association area overlaps with the particular limbic systems, somota-sensory loops, and so on, how can the time be known to have been 5 minutes? This is likely related to circadian clock activity (pre-conscious) so to have cognitative memory of it, means not so much of the brain was closed down. And that, actually, is the trouble I so often find. Mind is a different projection (in the literal sense of 'neurons project') from many aspects of brain activity. I recall one National Geographic article entitled something along the lines of, 'mind is what brain does,' and that very well sums it up, I do reason. Thus, at the moment, I would say that it was not a synesthesia matter--because that is most often something which is stable for the person who has that particular overlap. And holding any details of how such could happen, aside, I would reason that it was a very 'fringe consciousness' event; bordering lucid dreaming (and perhaps the meditation act had little to do with it). It does sound like fun, however ! I kind of wish I could do that.

Let me first also extend the human connection of empathy to you, needinganswers . . . though with soothing words of emotion, one can only help with the burden of carrying such weight, not relieve the weight, I do hope that by what I might say, or what pywakit has said, you can be help to look onward in time, along with any longing of the heart for a past. Here, I think you can understand, we do not have enough information to make a really sure statement--as regards his specific condition. I do hope, nevertheless, that you will give a certain degree of fair consideration to the more thinkably so matters. I assume that either a CT scan or an MRI had been done, and that sent off for interpretation. While we could presently keep the expression 'brain death' for the purpose of expediency, I would suggest care in using an expression such as 'brain dead.' Bernat [bernat, 2009] offers 'death determined by brain criteria,' as a more accurate description of the circumstances, and I presently find no problem with that. We can take it from what you have provided, that we are looking at whole-brain death (and this is not to be confused with saying that the 'whole' of the brain is dead; there is a difference). Taking it to be the case that somehow (and there are a great number of thinkable scenarios here) the brain stem was largely intact, we can understand how some basic autonomic functions would be fairly up and running. (This may bring back to mind the condition of 'Mike the headless chicken,' which walked around, ate, circulated blood, breathed, and so on...but all without consciousness of any degree.) Therefore, being able to breathe on his own may not have presented any major problem (other than evidence of lack of inspection time). While motor 'automatisms' occur, it appears to be rare. What is called the 'Lazarus sign,' (bilateral arm elevation during apnoea testing) is seen at times too. That you have reported that he had otherwise been in very good health, the beside tests carry firm weight (other health problems could be ruled out for things like non-reflex for pupilary light/dark, or vestibulocular). In that having been removed from ventilation, regardless of time involved, he did die, it is fair to understand that brain damage was irreversible. Additionally, this would be somewhat different than the circumstances of persistent vegetative state (PVS), locked-in syndrome [or state] (LIS), or cases of Guillain-barre syndrome (which are occasionally misdiagnosed as brain death cases). [Monti, et al.] Now, to touch on one main concern which evidently has been weighing strongly on your heart; that of feeling pain. Again, while my heart goes out to you on this matter, I have at times seen what could be reasoned out to be too much emphasis put on the 'feeling pain matter in similar cases. Please rest assured, that the likelihood of there having been any pain felt (that is acknowledged cognitively) is very, very small. Especially, we can also consider, would this be the case if the major blow to the head had been more dorsal (upwards area) than frontal. At any rate, and given what you have told us, no, there had been no pain felt. Also, most tragically, he, the person, had been dead from relatively soon after the accident. Bernat, James L (2009) Brain Death. The Neurology of Consciousness--Cognitive Neuroscience and Neurpathology, Laureys, Steven and Tononi, Giulio (eds); Academic Press, pp 151-162; Monti, Martin M., et al. (2009) Neuroimaging and the Vegetative State--Resolving the Behavioral Assessment Dilemma? Disorders of consciousness, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. Vol 1157, pp 81~89; Schiff, Nicholas D. (2009) Recovery of Consciousness after Brain Injury: An Integrative Research Paradigm for the Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousness. The Cognitive Neurosciences 4th ed. Gazzaniga (ed), MIT Press; pp 1123~1136; Schiff, Nicholas D. (2010) Recovery of consciousness after brain injury: a mesocircuit hypothesis. Trends Neursc., Vol 33, issue 1 (Jan); pp 1~9; Bradley, Walter G. (2009) Treating the Brain-What the Best Doctors Know. Dana Press; pp 166~168;

While enjoying the posts here, I couldn't help but wonder why the particular question had been threaded in this particular sub-forum...but anyway. Yes, I do think that one prime factor for laughter is entailed in the last paragraph of Phi for All's post. The 'false positive' effect tied in with the 'warning reaction,' is thinkably the prime precursor for laughing (the evolutionary line). As a side note, I was a big The Three Stooges fan back in those days of reruns.

From where the brightness of X-mas (regardless of where, and why, the tradition arose) illumination--plexus-like nettings hung all over the place--draw out romantic feelings from most everyone, and where the coming New Year celebrations and TV shows help keep our eyes focused on the economic 'kick' for the up-coming year, I wish you all a big MERRY CHRISTMAS !! My eating and drinking, of course, will start from the 31st...the point in time that I start my 'beer buzz from morning,' singing whole heartedly with Sherel Crow ([sp?]). Have a great one all ! LL

Thanks for posting on it, Genecks. I would have loved to have been there, but just being so far off over here in this corner of the world, I just couldn't make it--besides, we are in the middle of the Fall/Winter semester here, and I would be able to cancel those classes so easily.

That really is a big mess they have going there . . . it kind of send shivers down the spine; there are still such people out there.

Well, I might add--from my perspective of being here on the main island (Honshu)--that it is now October 13th evening, and I have heard neither stitch nor thread of such a suit. (meaning the main men's clothing stores in this area haven't jumped on the band wagon yet?) Also, what about the 'air borne' problem? I mean, wouldn't that, along with hand contact, be a greater concern than some virus getting lodged into clothing, anyway? (Mask sales and promotion have jumped here . . . and the general Japanese public has a weakness for the things anyway.)

A very interesting development indeed--and for myself, at least, a very interesting subject too (textual criticism, and ancient texts, that is [but I feel I can handle Theological discussions fair enough as well]). I wasn't so sure of where to really jump into this, and chose the above quote, due to the degree of what I might term 'neutral fairness in observation.' Now I kind of wonder if such a project may not have had some degree of impetus from the author of the work Misquoting the Truth who was not an academic, but who made a fair enough, yet greatly lacking attempt to answer to Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). I fully agree with the opinion that a big mess will be the outcome of such an attempt. It pretty much goes without saying that to get a 'better' translation of the original tongues, even, one would first have to attempt to get an original exemplar--which has more precisely been done in only the twentieth century, way past King James' day--and having done so, be able to grasp the original tongues. This would not only mean that the cultural setting would also have to be considered, but would mean that other textual works of the era in question would have to be considered. Thus while I agree that getting amateurs and non-scholarly types involved would be a good thing, without a certain degree of guidance by scholarship in the field, we'll have a barrel of monkeys which can never be tamed. In ydoaPs' post #5, mention was made of the attempt to remove some verses--viz. Luke 23:34, and John 7:53~8:11. While I will not attempt to consider Conservapedia's reason for leaving out those passages (which are in KJV), I wish to point out that textually, we have extremely weak witness to those, and by the best recensions (Gresbach, Westcott and Hort, Nestle and Aland 27th Ed.) they have been considered spurious. I too, am firmly of the opinion (for whatever worth that may hold) that in any good rendering of what would most likely have been an original autograph, these passages should be struck out. But, have they also considered leaving out Luke 23:17 (another spurious clause), the long and short endings of Mark, or Matthew 27:49b (about one thrusting a spear into Yeshua's side perhaps an attempt to correlate with John)? Another matter which I think ydoaPs' #17 hints at, is the error of the starting assumption that what we have with this 'Bible' of today. It is not, actually, a single volumed book, nor has it ever been quite such (giving a little room for the possible, early on LXX [septuagint] singularity concept). I think I noticed that it has been mentioned in their 'guidlines' (if you will) that they consider themselves to be focusing on 'eye witness' works in Matthew and John? The According to John gospel narrative has at the minimum two, but very possibly three, hands in it. That our According to Matthew of today, as a Greek recension even, is more likely not from the said disciple, has been demonstrated quite sufficiently. I could go on and on, but will let this much be posted, and will keep a watch here, and there, and point out other concerns . . . of concern.

I appreciate your taking the time to consider my case, and allowing me the priviledge of posting there--as I will do, soon enough. I also appreciate your trust. I do make errors when posting (such as my '30 days above, instead of the intended '10 days,' and the missing 't' in what became 'is' ) but we all are, after all, human. Thank you Cap'n Refsmmat !! LL

I had to search just a little to find the reason for my not being able to post there; and am satisfied with that, basically. I do think that is has been more than 30 days since I have joined--although I do not have 30 posts under the belt yet. It just so happens that I have noticed a thread down there on the compilation of a 'Bible' over the internet by non-scholars, or possibly (in cases) some scholarly religionists, that I'd love to make a few points in. I would hope that there could be some way that maybe I could persuade administration to consider my having been a member for more than 10 days already, checking my posting history (although nowhere near 30 posts) for circumstantial evidence (or what-have-you) and if considered reasonable enough, set my account so that I could have the priviledge of posting there. In that it does just happen to be that I am a fairly long standing member of the Society of Biblical Literature (the people who had gotten the Jesus Seminars going, and who have done much to better ancient Near Eastern textual understanding) and in a smaller way am fairly capable enough in both classic Hebrew and Greek (and have the original tongue texts), I would like to add to the conversation there, as well as explain a few matters (such as why some textual lines are consider spurious, and bracketed off in the recensions, etc.). Regardless, I will abide by the decision handed down to me, and thank you all for taking the time to consider it. LL

Perhaps there would be little other than finer detail that could be added to bascule's post above; however I'd like to take this ball and run in a slightly different pattern--if I may. What I would like to focus in on, in closer parameters, is the matter of 'stages to consciousness.' It appears reasonable enough to me, at least, that more clarity will be reached in more fully grasping the better understanding of conscious being a continuum, where above a certain threshold thereof, we have consciousness. In this sense, we could concieve of it in kind of 'fuzzy' stages, I would posit. From time to time we will find comments kind of hand-wringing over the tendency to put it in black and white terms, such as LeDuox's "It's a linguistic quirk, or revealing cultural assumption, that the older (unconscious) processes are defined as negations of the newer one (consciousness)" (1) or the note that 'part of the problem is reflected in the fact that the very term 'uncounscious' is defined by what it is not-- not conscious--rather than by what it might be. (2) Such observations seem to not only highlight, but to also reflect, the better understanding in the field at the moment. The OP refers us to some quotes from a work by Antonio Damasio (see OP) who also brings out the general gist of that subject in his contribution (along with Kaspar Meyer), Consciousness: An Overview of the Phenomenon and of its Possible Neural Basis. (3). On page 5, in that work (this contribution) we find the following observation, "Neither attention nor consciousness are monoliths but rather occur in levels and grades, from simple (core consciousness) to complex (extended consciousness)." This coincides with elements brought out in a number of studies, such as (for a small, random sample space) in S. Topolinski & F. Strack; B. Gawronski, et al.; E. Norman, et al.; J. He Biyu & E. Marcus; Anil K. Seth, et al.; M. Cabanac, et al.; S.V. Gaal, et al.; H.C. Lau & R.E. Passingham; M.A. Williams, et al.; and P.J. Uhlhaas, et al..(4) What I would like to present, is the understanding that as ganglion has built towards brain, over an evolutionary time frame, conscious*--as expressed in, more specifically, neuron and astrocyte [at least for now] activity--has built towards consciousness, and in lines with the presentation of the OP (if I may here) would suggest that we can think of 'stages,' though somewhat fuzzy, and more than a simple three--as has been pointed out above. * This term is used here as a noun, and not an adjective from which consciousness is derived, and thus not a matter of being conscious in the sense of experiencing consciousness as per usual dictionary entry. 1. LeDoux, Joseph; Synaptic Self, p 11; PENGUIN BOOKS 2002 2. Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science Vol 4, p 441; Nature Publishing, 2003 3. The Neurology of Consciousness--Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology, Edited by S. Laureys and G. Tononi; Academic Press, 2009 4. Respectively: Scanning the "Fringe" of consciousness: what is felt and what is not felt in intuitions about semantic coherence. (2009) Consciousness and Cognition Vol 18, issue 3, pp 608-618; Are "implicit" attitudes unconscious? (2006) Consciousness and Cognition Vol 15, issue 3, pp 485-499; Graduations of awareness in a modified sequence learning task. (2007) Consciousness and Cognition Vol 16, issue 4, pp 809-837; The fMRI signal, slow cortical potential and consciousness. (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 13, issue 7, pp 302-309; Measuring consciousness: relating behavioral and neurophysiological approaches. (2008) Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 12, issue 8, pp 314-321; The emergence of consciousness in phylogeny. (2009) Behavioural Brain Research Vol 198, issue 2, pp 267-272; Frontal Cortex Mediates Unconsciously Triggered Inhibitory Control. (2008) Journal of Neuroscience Vol 28 (Aug) pp 8053-8062; Unconscious Activation of the Cognitive Control System in the Human Prefrontal Cortex. (2007) Journal of Neuroscience (May), pp 5805-5811; Conscious and Unconscious Processing of Nonverbal Predictability in Wernicke's Area. (2000) Journal of Neuroscience Vol 20 (March), pp 1975-1981; The development of neural synchrony reflects late maturation and restructuring of functional networks in humans. (2009) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. Vol 106, no. 24, pp 9866-9871.

I might also add, along with the above, that it would not be so precise to think of the neurons as transmitting 'electric signals' (since, as far as I know, that only occurs at gap junctions; and maybe with some glia cells), but transmitting nerotransmitters and neuromodulators. 'Electricity' (title) itself is perhaps a bad image, actually--the depolarization events are not due to free moving electrons, per se (as electricity is), but to positive and negative ions. Oh, and only the neurons have axons, muscle cells do not.

I think it would be an interesting thing, if it could be done; but would also have to say that it would be extremely difficult, for sure. The imagination would be pulling memory from a number of places (and mostly visual memory?), and if all that firing and mapping could be encoded and translated so as to produce what might otherwise be called the 'experience' (or qualia), then maybe yeah, we could see the subjective experience in the objective view--much, much better than fMRI, or multiply cell recording, or what-have-you. If ever it could be done, I'd be willing to bet it'd be far, far off into the distant future. Yet, I'm curious as to where the concept may have come from.

From the heart of Japan, the rolling foothills of the Japan Alps, I send a big 'hello' to all. While I am from the USA, I have been living here in Japan for some 26 years almost. The little lady is a Japanese national, and we have 3 boys. My main interest in the area of science, is that of the neurosciences. While I am doing research in the field, to some extent, I am not a scientist. I do have a study underway regarding education, and I have helped out slighty in a study on mental states and dietary habits, but that's about it--and I don't consider it any big deal. My purpose for joining ScienceForums is to both learn, and where I can, help in sharing. I look forward to reading up, and joining in when and where I can. LL