 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
 |
See the BBC Horizon docu-vid showing how anyone can experience an out-of-body experience, The Secret You. (Prof. Dr. John-Dylan Haynes (Bernstein Center for Computational  Neuroscience, Berlin) |
2012.06.04, 1300 Recent neuroscience research, presented in the 2009 BBC Horizon documentary, Finding my mind / The Secret You, demonstrates that,
scientists can now easily give anyone a genuine out-of-body experience (so is the body merely an avatar that our "self" operates remotely like a computer avatar from a non-physical realm?) and
by monitoring the precuneus region of your brain with an MRI, Prof. Dr. John-Dylan Haynes (Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience, Berlin) can know what you will decide up to 7 seconds before you consciously know yourself what you will decide!!! Does this prove that decisions and cognition (consciousness) are the inexorable result of a natural, physical biochemical process of neuronal aggregation – and that, therefore, there is no such thing as free will or a soul?
The docu, narrated by Dr. Marcus Du Sautoy (Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and current Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science), focuses new light on the relationship between the conscious "me" (the nëphꞋ ësh or soul associated with free will, choice and decision-making) and the aggregation of neuronal correlation in the physical brain. This docu connects research done by:
Dr. Henrik Ehrsson (Karolinska Institutet, Sweden),
Prof. Marcello Massimini; Wisconsin Univ. Psychiatric Institute and Clinics,
Prof. Christof Koch, neuroscientist, California Institute of Technology and
Prof. Dr. John-Dylan Haynes (Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin).
These theories all crash and burn on the preconceived shoals of atheism and the assumed premise that there is no such thing as the "soul" or a "self" apart from the physical world.
As Dr. Du Sautoy noted, French philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) postulated the principle of dualism between the physical and the non-physical. While the brain and its neurons are physical, thoughts, ideas and awareness are non-physical. By definition, no physical science has ever presented any kind of evidence that relates to any aspect of a non-physical realm. Science has always recognized that there is an unbridgeable difference and separation between physical (brain) and non-physical (thoughts, ideas, and other intangibles.)
Science is committed to the principle that everything in the universe has a cause. This principle contradicts and precludes free will choice / decision – unless there is some mechanism to bridge the distinction back-and-forth from the physical to the non-physical "self." If "self" is mere physical biochemistry then there is no free will; simply a biological collection of neuronal activity that builds up, in a completely natural way, and causes a completely natural – scientifically caused and predictable – reaction, which is not free will choice.
Thoughts don't exist in physical space. A process that spans physical space and an indefinable non-physical existence cannot be described as a "physical process." It is a trans-physical, trans-realm or trans-domain, phenomenon.
Like all other neuroscience findings I've seen published to date: this research, too, yet again, perfectly meshes with the "Transceiver Brain Theory" (acting like a 2-way radio transceiver bridging the non-physical domain of thought with the physical world of the body. My theory, which I've postulated for years, is still the only theory compatible with the science-imposed distinction between the physical world of the brain, body and universe from the non-physical world of thought, ideas and intangibles (see, inter alia, my last paper, "Ψ or ð?" in our Web Café Archive Center, 2011.10.19).
Only humans, orangutans and chimps have been shown capable of self-awareness in the mirror test (see video). Falling prey to logical fallacy, researchers assume that, since children fail the test until the age of 18-24 mos., that is when self-awareness occurs. This is a fallacy. There are many other possible explanations and, until all other explanations can be scientifically ruled out, this assumption remains invalid. It could be that younger children still have more urgent orientation concerns and simply have yet developed the attention span to focus on, or care about, the mirror experiment. Or, at earlier ages children may not yet have even figured out whether there are other people who might look and behave exactly like them – which could, from their experience, also explain the image in the mirror.
 |
| Precuneus of left cerebral hemisphere (BodyParts3D) |
The research of these scientists has located a module of the physical brain – the precuneus – that seems to behave like a trans-realm (physical / non-physical) antenna that, as I'll discuss further after presenting their research, tends to corroborate a Transceiver Brain that bridges the physical and non-physical domains. A physical / non-physical, trans-realm theory not only meshes with this newest research and remains compatible with the distinction between physical and non-physical realms, it has the potential to establish that the existence of the "self" is in the non-physical domain: the precuneus-antenna being the connection between the physical brain / nᵊshâm•âhꞋ and a non-physical cognition (consciousness, cognition, self or nëphꞋ ësh).
Of course, that would make our body pretty much an avatar, operated, via our brain-computer, by our "self" that exists only in the non-physical world.
But could that really be?
Prof. Christof Koch (neuroscientist, California Institute of Technology) demonstrated that a given neuron can signal a particular idea, in his experiment, Jennifer Anniston. Prof. Koch then commits the logical fallacy of assuming that an aggregation of neurons correlating to an idea is (causes) the idea. However, it is equally valid to correlate the aggregation of neurons to a response (effect) to the idea. The difference is that his Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) would then evidence the brain's response (effect) to an idea rather than the brain's construction (cause) of the idea. Thus, his NCC does not demonstrate that consciousness emerges from a collection of neurons. It's just as valid to postulate that the collection of active neurons is a response, rather than a cause, of consciousness – the brain being the transceiver between the non-physical realm of the thought and the physical realm of the neurons.
As you saw in the video, Dr. Henrik Ehrsson of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, and now subsequently many others, routinely demonstrate genuine out-of-body, soul-separate-from-body, experiences. Moreover, they can perform what was foolishly called "astral projection," able to project "you" into anything from a Barbie Doll to a fly on the wall.
Once again, however, the researcher commits a logical fallacy, wrongly concluding that his out-of-body experiment proves that "the brain is all." Exactly the opposite! The brain remained in the physical body, not relocated to the cameras position of the "self." This proves, rather, that the "self" is apart from the brain!!! The "self" and the brain are proven distinct and separate by this experiment! Just as separate as when you project yourself into an avatar when operating a computer game.
What the experiment also proves is that our worldly, conscious, "self" depends entirely upon our six senses and as funneled through the nexus of our brain. Absent all six senses our "self" would perceive nothing of the physical world through our body. (Signals could still be sent straight to the brain, stimulating our "self" to perceive the world similar to the out-of-body experiences – and our "self" wouldn't be able to know the difference!) Without the brain processing the signals, however, nothing of the physical world would reach our "self"; the physical world would not exist for our "self"! Where, then, would "you" be?
I avoid the popular description out-of-body "illusion" because there's no evidence that the reality of our "real world," a projection of sub-quantum forces to our six senses, is any less of an illusion! They are both experienced. You can decide for yourself what's illusion and whether reality is just a more sophisticated illusion to provide a test-bench of a life-time of world experiences to our "self."
 |
| Precuneus (antenna) circuitry connections to the rest of the brain: Blue: Sensorimotor Wiring to the Anterior Subsection of the Precuneus Region; Green: Cognitive-Associative Wiring to the Central Subsection of the Precuneus Region; Yellow: Visual Wiring to the Posterior Subsection of the Precuneus Region. |
Prof. Marcello Massimini; Wisconsin Univ. Psychiatric Institute and Clinics, has documented that the connections from the precuneus region to the rest of the brain switch off during sleep. Indeed, interconnections from all regions of the brain seem unable to contact other regions during sleep. A given spot that is stimulated by TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) registers the stimulation, but then it is simply ignored, dropped, gone – much like a switched-off 2-way radio transceiver stimulated by a signal picked up by its antenna. The antenna reacts as usual, but the transceiver's circuitry simply does nothing with the incoming signal. The radio is off. The subject asleep – unconscious. The research again seems to corroborate the Transceiver Brain theory.
The big question at this point should be: Now where is the "self"??? (During sleep / unconsciousness). We dream. So our "self" doesn't switch off or cease to exist.
Prof. Dr. John-Dylan Haynes (Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin) -- decisions; experiments "reveal who is in charge of my decisions. Is it the conscious "me"? Or an unconscious mass of gray matter that I have no control over?" (Du Sautoy). Extremely simple experiment: In an FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) scanner, randomly decide when to press either a left button or a right button. Experimenters know what decision the subject will make 6 seconds before the subject knows and makes the decision!!! Did the subconscious brain "make" the decision 6 seconds before the subject was consciously aware of the decision? Or did the brain "receive" the decision from the subconsious, process that signal and pass it on to the conscious over the period of 6 seconds? Does the scanner demonstrate the reception of "a signal from the beyond"?
[Du Sautoy] "So I was conscious of making a decision to press my right finger down, you're [Prof. Haynes] saying, that 6 seconds earlier, my brain had already made that decision?"
[Haynes] "Exactly. So here we can show you how we did it. In this region [pointing to the precuneus region of the brain in an MRI scan of Du Sautoy's brain], there's a pattern of brain activity that emerges before you make up your mind that tells us which way you're going to decide. And these blue regions, they get more active when you're going to choose left, and the yellow regions get more active when you're going to choose right."
[Du Sautoy] "That's a bit frightening. It sort of implies, therefore, my conscious decisions are a very secondary thing to my actual brain activity?"
[Haynes] "Absolutely. Absolutely. It seems that there's a lot of unconscious brain activity going on that is shaping your decisions; and that your consciousness comes in at a very late stage in the decision."
[Du Sautoy] "That's a rather frightening idea, that I'm hostage to neuronal activity, that's happening 6 seconds earlier."
[Haynes] "Well, I wouldn't call it a hostage situation, because thinking of it as a hostage implies a dualism between your conscious mind and your brain activity. But the conscious mind is encoded in brain activity. It's realized by brain activity. It's an aspect of your brain activity. And also the unconscious brain activity realizes certain aspects of you. It's in harmony with your beliefs and desires. So in most cases it's not going to force you to do something you don't want to do."
[Problem with their scientific theories: How and why would conscious mind encoding "realize certain aspects of you" or be "in harmony with your beliefs and desires"? There is no scientific reason why this should ever be the case. Why wouldn't the encoding more simply be (according to Occam's Razor) random? Further, compatible encoding implies that the encoding and neuronal activity is the effect of one's beliefs and desires rather than their cause. The beliefs and desires more likely fit the cause.]
[Du Sautoy] "So what, do you think, this has implications for the whole, sort of, study of trying to understand consciousness and what "I" is inside?"
[Haynes] "Well Absolutely. I think, if we find that a person's thoughts are very closely encoded in their brain activity, we can't make a distinction between these thoughts and the brain activity. We don't need to assume that they're two separate entities existing in two different spaces. Rather, they're different aspects of the same physical process. So, your consciousness is your brain activity, and that's what's leading your life.
It seems that what our experiments reveal is that there's like a mechanism unfolding, a deterministic mechanism that leads up to you decision at a later point in time, and that was inevitable. It could only go one way."
"Our study shows that decisions are unconsciously prepared much longer ahead than previously thought. But we do not know yet where the final decision is made. We need to investigate whether a decision prepared by these brain areas can still be reversed." (Haynes)
The "Transceiver Brain" theory predicts that the answer must be "no." A transceiver is not a causative device. It merely reacts to two-way incoming signals, processes them and passes on the results (either from the "self" to the body with a mission or from the body to the "self"). Thus, while the aggregation of a neuronal activity may signal an impending conscious decision, any reversal must be initiated by the non-present "self," not physically internally by the neuronal activity or aggregation per se.
This research is touted to have implications concerning the complexity of consciousness and the capability of other species, and even computers, to be, or become, self-aware. Yet again, if this implication is about the complexity merely of the transceiver and its antenna, instead of an entire "internal physical authorship of thought and consciousness," then each is defined only by the type and bandwidth of signal it can process from the non-physical to the physical-avatar realm. Since machines, at least at their present state, have NO such transceiver mechanism whatsoever, there is no consciousness or soul whatsoever.
(Prof. Gordon Gallup, author of mirror self-recognition test)
 |
|
 |