Consciousness

[bilby]

The MRI environment may cause harm in patients with MR-Unsafe devices such as cochlear implants, aneurysm clips, and many permanent pacemakers. In November 1992, a patient with an undisclosed cerebral aneurysm clip reportedly died shortly after an MRI exam.[35] Several deaths have been reported in patients with pacemakers who have undergone MRI scanning without appropriate precautions.[36] MR Conditional pacemakers are increasingly available for selected patients.[37]

Ferromagnetic foreign bodies such as shell fragments, or metallic implants such as surgical prostheses and ferromagnetic aneurysm clips are also potential risks. Interaction of the magnetic and radio frequency fields with such objects can lead to heating or torque of the object during an MRI.[38]

Projectile risk

The very high strength of the magnetic field can cause projectile effect (or "missile-effect") accidents, where ferromagnetic objects are attracted to the center of the magnet. Pennsylvania reported 27 cases of objects becoming projectiles in the MRI environment between 2004 and 2008.[39] There have been incidents of injury and death.[40][41] In one case, a 6-year-old boy died during an MRI exam, after a metal oxygen tank was pulled across the room and crushed the child's head.[42] To reduce the risk of projectile accidents, ferromagnetic objects and devices are typically prohibited near the MRI scanner, and patients undergoing MRI examinations must remove all metallic objects, often by changing into a gown or scrubs. Some radiology departments use ferromagnetic detection devices to ensure that no ferromagnetic objects enter the scanner room.[43][44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging

Refrigerator magnet?

I would check your math.

^Still oblivious to his gross error, despite having it pointed out in detail by many different posters, the oblivious person continues to try to prove something that was never in dispute.

This is what happens when you assume that you know what people are going to say, and decide that they are wrong before you have actually read, and attempted to understand, their posts.

What happens to metal in the body?

Why do you think that this matters?

Why do you run away from the most salient evidence of field strength?

Because field strength is not in dispute here, as you would know if you had read and attempted to understand beero1000's posts above (or mine for that matter, although he said it better - several times).

I'm tired of your ignorant lectures.

LOL

What happens to metal in the body?

Nobody cares. Apart from, for no clear reason, you.

We are interested in induced currents. Static magnetic fields, despite whatever spectacular effects they might have on metallic objects, do not induce significant electrical currents in brain cells (or in any conductors). To induce such currents in brain cells requires dynamic magnetic fields - such as those used in TMS.

Your devotion to your non-sequitur does you no credit.

 

[untermensche]

What happens to metal in the body?

Nobody cares. Apart from, for no clear reason, you.

I understand why you don't care about evidence.

You have a faith you're trying to sell.

I happen to care about evidence when I make claims about field strength.

 

[bilby]

Nobody cares. Apart from, for no clear reason, you.

I understand why you don't care about evidence.

You have a faith you're trying to sell.

I happen to care about evidence when I make claims about field strength.

Nobody has made any claims about field strength (apart from you).

That you still think they have is hilarious.

 

[untermensche]

I understand why you don't care about evidence.

You have a faith you're trying to sell.

I happen to care about evidence when I make claims about field strength.

Nobody has made any claims about field strength (apart from you).

That you still think they have is hilarious.

I have made claims about field strength and the effect it would have on consciousness were it some electrical effect.

We cannot claim consciousness is an electrical effect merely because neurons can be excited artificially by an electric current.

We cannot claim consciousness is an electrical effect just because the activity of nerve cells has an electrical effect.

 

[bilby]

Nobody has made any claims about field strength (apart from you).

That you still think they have is hilarious.

I have made claims about field strength and the effect it would have on consciousness were it some electrical effect.

We cannot claim consciousness is an electrical effect merely because neurons can be excited artificially by an electric current.

We cannot claim consciousness is an electrical effect just because the activity of nerve cells has an electrical effect.

You cannot claim anything, with any credibility, unless and until you acknowledge your error and (if you want to recover a little respect as well as a trace of credibility) apologize to beero1000 for your completely unwarranted accusation that he lied.

 

[DBT]

Wrong again. It is both electrical and chemical, information processing is an elecrochemical process.


''Electrical events propagate a signal within a neuron, and chemical processes transmit the signal from one neuron to another or to a muscle cell. The chemical process of interaction between neurons and between neurons and effector cells occur at the end of the axon, in a structure called synapse.''

Neuronal signaling

To support the general function of the nervous system, neurons have evolved unique capabilities for intracellular signaling (communication within the cell) and intercellular signaling (communication between cells). To achieve long distance, rapid communication, neurons have evolved special abilities for sending electrical signals (action potentials) along axons. This mechanism, called conduction, is how the cell body of a neuron communicates with its own terminals via the axon. Communication between neurons is achieved at synapses by the process of neurotransmission.

Conduction

To begin conduction, an action potential is generated near the cell body portion of the axon. An action potential is an electrical signal very much like the electrical signals in electronic devices. But whereas an electrical signal in an electronic device occurs because electrons move along a wire, an electrical signal in a neuron occurs because ions move across the neuronal membrane. Ions are electrically charged particles. The protein membrane of a neuron acts as a barrier to ions. Ions move across the membrane through ion channels that open and close due to the presence of neurotransmitter. When the concentration of ions on the inside of the neuron changes, the electrical property of the membrane itself changes''

What?

You are showing I am right.

Cells do not send electrical currents to the next cell.

They emit neurotransmitters and this is what excites the next cell.

You continue omit to consider all that is said, instead picking and choosing what you want to see. I said that information processing is both chemical - synaptic clefts - and electrical to the point of the synaptic cleft.

One cannot function without the other, without electrical impulses there is no communication between cells, without chemical connectivity there is no communication between cells.

You need to grasp that it takes both, that this is an electrochemical process and that chemical imbalances can effect cognition as can electrical brain stimulation....both chemistry and the electrical system effecting changes to consciousness.

Please read more carefully and consider all that's been said without picking an choosing the bits that suit your needs.

 

[DBT]

Nobody made the claim that fMRI effects consciousness. That is your ploy to avoid the fact that the brain is frequency sensitive and that not all frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum effect consciousness, but some do.
That is what makes you appear ignorant and rude and arrogant, even when this is clearly pointed out to you. You not only ignore the relevant details but respond like a child.

I said MRI does not have any effect on consciousness and a bunch of morons starting posting things about magnetic stimulation, which is really just electrical stimulation, in response.

Don't blame me because morons can't read.

It was your choice of examples that is moronic,

 

[DBT]

Nobody cares. Apart from, for no clear reason, you.

I understand why you don't care about evidence.

You have a faith you're trying to sell.

I happen to care about evidence when I make claims about field strength.

For heavens sake, you are the one making claims without evidence to support them. You are the one hand waving....oh, oh, look I can move my hand at will, meanwhile completely ignoring the underlying process by which this perception and action is achieved.

 

[DBT]

Furthermore;

Effects of 45-Hz magnetic fields on the functional state of the human brain.

Abstract
''The influence of sinusoidal 45-Hz magnetic fields on the brain functions of 20 volunteers was investigated in a double-blind study using spectral analysis of EEG and measurements of Omega potentials and reaction time (RT). The field strength was 1,000 A/m (1.26 mT) and the duration of exposure was 1 h. Ten volunteers were exposed to a continuous field and ten received an intermittent exposure (1 s on/l s off). Each person received one real and one sham exposure. One half of the volunteers got the real exposure first and the sham treatment after at least 24 h. For the rest, the sequence was inverse. The measurements of EEG, omega potentials and RT were performed before and after each exposure. Several statistically significant changes were observed, most of them after intermittent exposure. In the EEG, an increase of alpha (7.6-13.9 Hz) activity and a decrease of delta (1.5-3.9 Hz) activity were observed. Beta waves (14.2-20 Hz) increased in the frontal derivations as did the total power in occipital derivations. The mean and peak frequencies of EEG increased mainly in the frontal derivations. No direct effects on RT were seen. Learning to perform the RT test (decrease of RT in repeated trials), however, seemed to be affected by the exposure. The persons who received real exposure first learned more slowly than those who got sham exposure first. Further experiments are necessary to confirm the findings and for understanding the mechanisms of the effects.''

 

[untermensche]

I have made claims about field strength and the effect it would have on consciousness were it some electrical effect.

We cannot claim consciousness is an electrical effect merely because neurons can be excited artificially by an electric current.

We cannot claim consciousness is an electrical effect just because the activity of nerve cells has an electrical effect.

You cannot claim anything, with any credibility, unless and until you acknowledge your error and (if you want to recover a little respect as well as a trace of credibility) apologize to beero1000 for your completely unwarranted accusation that he lied.

Go away you pest.

- - - Updated - - -

I said MRI does not have any effect on consciousness and a bunch of morons starting posting things about magnetic stimulation, which is really just electrical stimulation, in response.

Don't blame me because morons can't read.

It was your choice of examples that is moronic,

No it wasn't. Not in the least.

The problem is I presented it to a bunch of morons.

 

[untermensche]

What?

You are showing I am right.

Cells do not send electrical currents to the next cell.

They emit neurotransmitters and this is what excites the next cell.

You continue omit to consider all that is said, instead picking and choosing what you want to see. I said that information processing is both chemical - synaptic clefts - and electrical to the point of the synaptic cleft.

One cannot function without the other, without electrical impulses there is no communication between cells, without chemical connectivity there is no communication between cells.

You need to grasp that it takes both, that this is an electrochemical process and that chemical imbalances can effect cognition as can electrical brain stimulation....both chemistry and the electrical system effecting changes to consciousness.

Please read more carefully and consider all that's been said without picking an choosing the bits that suit your needs.

You need to start reading.

I made the comment that cells do not communicate between themselves via electric current. Which is a fact.

Then you jumped in with this bunch of erroneous nonsense.

The point is, stimulating a cell with an electric current tells us nothing about normal function. It is not normal activity.

You need to start reading.

As I said before. I understand all of this a lot better than you.

 

[fromderinside]

Using electric current to stimulate a cell tells us that that cell communicates with whatever nervous tissue sends messages to the places where we have recording electrodes. We put electrodes in those places because we believe those neurons may be connected in a pathway leading to specific functions we find at muscles, skin, livers, etc. Oh by the way ,we know that our electrical stimulation produces electrochemical activity leading to generation of action potentials in processes between cells (from one cell to another. We also know the action potential is an electrochemical process involving opening and closing channels along a neural substrate which permits changes in inside and outside substrate electrical potentials which in turn permit selective flow of ions in and out of a cell. To complex? Take science.

 

[untermensche]

Using electric current to stimulate a cell tells us that that cell communicates with whatever nervous tissue sends messages to the places where we have recording electrodes. We put electrodes in those places because we believe those neurons may be connected in a pathway leading to specific functions we find at muscles, skin, livers, etc. Oh by the way ,we know that our electrical stimulation produces electrochemical activity leading to generation of action potentials in processes between cells (from one cell to another. We also know the action potential is an electrochemical process involving opening and closing channels along a neural substrate which permits changes in inside and outside substrate electrical potentials which in turn permit selective flow of ions in and out of a cell. To complex? Take science.

That's different.

That is not emitting an unnatural current.

That is just looking at activity.

We know cells have activity and we know that the activity in the brain moves around.

We don't know what any of the activity means or how it somehow moves around.

 

[fromderinside]

Really? In my post I noted we knew where one stimulation would result in activity at specific other cells. Don't you wonder how we were able to do that? Of course we know how activity gets around, just as we know how a neuron works. Check out stuff from the '60s by authors such as Hodgkin and Huxley, or authors studying different kinds of neural chemical transport, one of which, ion transport, I suggested in the second description. We, I, had been studying this since I was an undergraduate as most every other person here who studied either biology or neurosciences since Sherrington's (defined the synapse) work in the 1890s ferchrisake.

Do you actualy think that authors specifying decision making taking place in the lateral medial frontal cortex to be a shot in the dark?

 

[beero1000]

Really? In my post I noted we knew where one stimulation would result in activity at specific other cells. Don't you wonder how we were able to do that? Of course we know how activity gets around, just as we know how a neuron works. Check out stuff from the '60s by authors such as Hodgkin and Huxley, or authors studying different kinds of neural chemical transport, one of which, ion transport, I suggested in the second description. We, I, had been studying this since I was an undergraduate as most every other person here who studied either biology or neurosciences since Sherrington's (defined the synapse) work in the 1890s ferchrisake.

Do you actualy think that authors specifying decision making taking place in the lateral medial frontal cortex to be a shot in the dark?

He thinks the strength of a magnetic field is what induces currents. Faraday's law goes back to the 1830s and is covered in basic physics classes.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction though. Doubling down is more likely.

 

[untermensche]

Really? In my post I noted we knew where one stimulation would result in activity at specific other cells. Don't you wonder how we were able to do that? Of course we know how activity gets around, just as we know how a neuron works. Check out stuff from the '60s by authors such as Hodgkin and Huxley, or authors studying different kinds of neural chemical transport, one of which, ion transport, I suggested in the second description. We, I, had been studying this since I was an undergraduate as most every other person here who studied either biology or neurosciences since Sherrington's (defined the synapse) work in the 1890s ferchrisake.

Do you actualy think that authors specifying decision making taking place in the lateral medial frontal cortex to be a shot in the dark?

He thinks the strength of a magnetic field is what induces currents. Faraday's law goes back to the 1830s and is covered in basic physics classes.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction though. Doubling down is more likely.

Not induce currents, distort electrical effects.

So called "patterns" of electrical events.

A strong magnetic field would distort any such "patterns".

- - - Updated - - -

Really? In my post I noted we knew where one stimulation would result in activity at specific other cells. Don't you wonder how we were able to do that? Of course we know how activity gets around, just as we know how a neuron works. Check out stuff from the '60s by authors such as Hodgkin and Huxley, or authors studying different kinds of neural chemical transport, one of which, ion transport, I suggested in the second description. We, I, had been studying this since I was an undergraduate as most every other person here who studied either biology or neurosciences since Sherrington's (defined the synapse) work in the 1890s ferchrisake.

Do you actualy think that authors specifying decision making taking place in the lateral medial frontal cortex to be a shot in the dark?

We know THAT activity moves around. It appears in one part of the brain then another.

We have no idea HOW, in terms of what motivates and carries out the changes.

 

[bilby]

You cannot claim anything, with any credibility, unless and until you acknowledge your error and (if you want to recover a little respect as well as a trace of credibility) apologize to beero1000 for your completely unwarranted accusation that he lied.

Go away you pest.

No.

- - - Updated - - -

I said MRI does not have any effect on consciousness and a bunch of morons starting posting things about magnetic stimulation, which is really just electrical stimulation, in response.

Don't blame me because morons can't read.

It was your choice of examples that is moronic,

No it wasn't. Not in the least.

The problem is I presented it to a bunch of morons.

The only common factor in all the interactions where people disagree with your claims is you.

It takes a special kind of egotism to imagine that you cannot be wrong, when everyone is telling you you are wrong, and providing evidence to back their claims.

But the evidence is probably a moron too, so as long as you don't read it, you remain in the right. Right?

 

[untermensche]

Go away you pest.

No.

- - - Updated - - -

I said MRI does not have any effect on consciousness and a bunch of morons starting posting things about magnetic stimulation, which is really just electrical stimulation, in response.

Don't blame me because morons can't read.

It was your choice of examples that is moronic,

No it wasn't. Not in the least.

The problem is I presented it to a bunch of morons.

The only common factor in all the interactions where people disagree with your claims is you.

It takes a special kind of egotism to imagine that you cannot be wrong, when everyone is telling you you are wrong, and providing evidence to back their claims.

But the evidence is probably a moron too, so as long as you don't read it, you remain in the right. Right?

Is this a defense of "patterns"?

Because "patterns" is to consciousness as astrology is to human destiny.

Why don't you just admit the facts?

That we don't have the slightest idea what consciousness is.

We can see a lot of acivity in the brain but we don't understand any of it.

 

[George S]

Really? In my post I noted we knew where one stimulation would result in activity at specific other cells. Don't you wonder how we were able to do that? Of course we know how activity gets around, just as we know how a neuron works. Check out stuff from the '60s by authors such as Hodgkin and Huxley, or authors studying different kinds of neural chemical transport, one of which, ion transport, I suggested in the second description. We, I, had been studying this since I was an undergraduate as most every other person here who studied either biology or neurosciences since Sherrington's (defined the synapse) work in the 1890s ferchrisake.

Do you actualy think that authors specifying decision making taking place in the lateral medial frontal cortex to be a shot in the dark?

He thinks the strength of a magnetic field is what induces currents. Faraday's law goes back to the 1830s and is covered in basic physics classes.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction though. Doubling down is more likely.

Agree. He wouldn't know an inductor from hypnotic induction. I wonder if he knows how transformers work. Of course (the barbaric procedure) electroshock therapy affects a brain, inducing amnesia among other things.

 

[untermensche]

He thinks the strength of a magnetic field is what induces currents. Faraday's law goes back to the 1830s and is covered in basic physics classes.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a retraction though. Doubling down is more likely.

Agree. He wouldn't know an inductor from hypnotic induction. I wonder if he knows how transformers work. Of course (the barbaric procedure) electroshock therapy affects a brain, inducing amnesia among other things.

Nobody every claimed an MRI creates an electric charge in the brain. I in fact have several times pointed out the distinction between MRI and an artificial electric charge applied to the brain, which is really all magnetic conduction is.

What was claimed by others was consciousness is some "pattern" of electrical activity. A fact pulled from thin air.

And what I said was: If consciousness is some electrical effect it should be effected when exposed to a strong magnetic field. Not changed because the MRI is creating electricity. But changed because magnetic fields have effects on electric fields.

It is assumed by some that consciousness is an electrical effect because we can measure electrical activity in the brain.

There is no evidence consciousness is an electrical effect.

But that doesn't stop some people from claiming it is one.