Downward Causation: Useful or Misguided Idea?

[ruby sparks]

Sub, that wiki page suggests that people can have PTSD after experiences that they are aware of (and remember) while under general anaesthesia (I had one of these, but no significant PTSD that I know of) but should I take it that you think it's possible to have PTSD after surgery even if you don't remember the trauma?

 

[WAB]

Lots of interesting stuff here:

Anesthesia awareness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia_awareness#Awareness_and_recall

Wow. Scary, but still a far sight better than what people in ye olden dayes had to go through. Anyone remember that amputation scene in the Captain and Commander film? Ouch!

Herman Melville took several pages, and went into great detail describing the amputation of a seaman's leg in his novel White Jacket. I could barely get through it.

and...now for something completely different:

Anyone up for a "laughing gas party"? Looks like a blast.

 

[ruby sparks]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sljSf7KVlQ

 

[Subsymbolic]

Sub, that wiki page suggests that people can have PTSD after experiences that they are aware of (and remember) while under general anaesthesia (I had one of these, but no significant PTSD that I know of) but should I take it that you think it's possible to have PTSD after surgery even if you don't remember the trauma?

Not PTSD per se, but certainly stress, shock and other complications that are not present if a local is also used...

 

[bilby]

Sub, that wiki page suggests that people can have PTSD after experiences that they are aware of (and remember) while under general anaesthesia (I had one of these, but no significant PTSD that I know of) but should I take it that you think it's possible to have PTSD after surgery even if you don't remember the trauma?

Not PTSD per se, but certainly stress, shock and other complications that are not present if a local is also used...

Many of the substances used in anaesthesia, particularly benzodiazepines, are used as preventative treatment for PTSD. If I recall correctly, Flunitrazepam (notorious as the 'date rape drug' Rohypnol) has been used to good effect to reduce PTSD occurrence in soldiers and rape victims, with the supposed mechanism being its effect on memory - Administering Flunitrazepam shortly after a traumatic event appears to be effective in erasing memory of the event, and (presumably as a result) reducing the later incidence of PTSD.

As far as I can tell, there's no difference to the individual between an event they have no memory of, and an event that did not occur at all. I am not sure why I should be horrified by the idea that I was aware and/or in pain, but unable to react, during the extraction of my wisdom teeth - as I have no recollection at all of that, it seems to me to be functionally equivalent to something that never happened. Sure, I can see how it would be a problem to a third party with a 'God's eye view', but no such third party exists. I don't have a "soul" that can be traumatized by things my brain is unaware of.

 

[WAB]

For myself, the scariness comes from the what if factor: what happens if I need surgery or some procedure done in the future, and there is some mistake, and I do remember the trauma.

**Edit: I will be going inpatient for treatment for 30 days, within the next week or so, for certain, so YAY! I've got some extra time to dawdle around and wade the wondrous waters of worldly wisdom.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Sub, that wiki page suggests that people can have PTSD after experiences that they are aware of (and remember) while under general anaesthesia (I had one of these, but no significant PTSD that I know of) but should I take it that you think it's possible to have PTSD after surgery even if you don't remember the trauma?

Not PTSD per se, but certainly stress, shock and other complications that are not present if a local is also used...

Many of the substances used in anaesthesia, particularly benzodiazepines, are used as preventative treatment for PTSD. If I recall correctly, Flunitrazepam (notorious as the 'date rape drug' Rohypnol) has been used to good effect to reduce PTSD occurrence in soldiers and rape victims, with the supposed mechanism being its effect on memory - Administering Flunitrazepam shortly after a traumatic event appears to be effective in erasing memory of the event, and (presumably as a result) reducing the later incidence of PTSD.

As far as I can tell, there's no difference to the individual between an event they have no memory of, and an event that did not occur at all. I am not sure why I should be horrified by the idea that I was aware and/or in pain, but unable to react, during the extraction of my wisdom teeth - as I have no recollection at all of that, it seems to me to be functionally equivalent to something that never happened. Sure, I can see how it would be a problem to a third party with a 'God's eye view', but no such third party exists. I don't have a "soul" that can be traumatized by things my brain is unaware of.

Cool, in which case, I’d assume that, to remain consistent, you’d agree that there’s no difference between killing someone cleanly and torturing them to death? As long as there is no memory of the event, the two are functionally equivalent as soon as the person dies, wiping their memories?

Because it seems to me that you don’t need a God’s eye view to be in agony for a period, even if you forget. Sure when all events are in the past you can complacently speak of functional equivalence. Tell me if you feel so sanguine when the operation is tomorrow and the anaesthetist assures you that the hours of agony you are about to endure will neither be communicated nor remembered...

 

[Subsymbolic]

For myself, the scariness comes from the what if factor: what happens if I need surgery or some procedure done in the future, and there is some mistake, and I do remember the trauma.

**Edit: I will be going inpatient for treatment for 30 days, within the next week or so, for certain, so YAY! I've got some extra time to dawdle around and wade the wondrous waters of worldly wisdom.

Damn, that’s what happens when I respond without reading to the end...

 

[WAB]

For myself, the scariness comes from the what if factor: what happens if I need surgery or some procedure done in the future, and there is some mistake, and I do remember the trauma.

**Edit: I will be going inpatient for treatment for 30 days, within the next week or so, for certain, so YAY! I've got some extra time to dawdle around and wade the wondrous waters of worldly wisdom.

Damn, that’s what happens when I respond without reading to the end...

That flew over this cuckoo. Sorry, Sub, you have to remember, I'm as crazy as Antonin Artaud (okay, maybe not that crazy), and, just this afternoon, after describing to my counsilor some of my experiences of uttering nonsense non-volitionally when I'm trying to sleep (or at least I believe I'm not doing it on purpose), which has now been going on for almost a year, she said:

"I don't want to frighten you, but what you've just described sounds like dementia." So, after my treatment in the mental hospital, I have to see a neurologist.


Sorry for this off-topic stuff, all ye. I shall not utter another word about it in this thread.
...and there was much rejoicing...."yaaaayyyyy"

 

[bilby]

Many of the substances used in anaesthesia, particularly benzodiazepines, are used as preventative treatment for PTSD. If I recall correctly, Flunitrazepam (notorious as the 'date rape drug' Rohypnol) has been used to good effect to reduce PTSD occurrence in soldiers and rape victims, with the supposed mechanism being its effect on memory - Administering Flunitrazepam shortly after a traumatic event appears to be effective in erasing memory of the event, and (presumably as a result) reducing the later incidence of PTSD.

As far as I can tell, there's no difference to the individual between an event they have no memory of, and an event that did not occur at all. I am not sure why I should be horrified by the idea that I was aware and/or in pain, but unable to react, during the extraction of my wisdom teeth - as I have no recollection at all of that, it seems to me to be functionally equivalent to something that never happened. Sure, I can see how it would be a problem to a third party with a 'God's eye view', but no such third party exists. I don't have a "soul" that can be traumatized by things my brain is unaware of.

Cool, in which case, I’d assume that, to remain consistent, you’d agree that there’s no difference between killing someone cleanly and torturing them to death?

To the victim? There's no difference, once they are dead. During the event, they obviously suffer under torture - if they are conscious of it. Which leads to the question, how do we determine whether they are conscious of it, if outside observers can detect no indication of it, and the victim has no memory of it? That is, if you anaesthetized the victim before torturing him to death?

As long as there is no memory of the event, the two are functionally equivalent as soon as the person dies, wiping their memories?

Well, yes. How could they be otherwise?

Because it seems to me that you don’t need a God’s eye view to be in agony for a period, even if you forget. Sure when all events are in the past you can complacently speak of functional equivalence. Tell me if you feel so sanguine when the operation is tomorrow and the anaesthetist assures you that the hours of agony you are about to endure will neither be communicated nor remembered...

Well, IF it is true that general anesthaesia doesn't prevent pain, but instead induces amnesia, then the anaesthetist is wasting his time telling me about hours of agony that I will deny tomorrow, and that nobody in the operating theatre will be able to tell is happening.

My personal hypothesis is that the only difference between consciousness and memory is one of distance in time - consciousness is 'immediate term memory'; A highly detailed memory of what happened in the last hundred or so milliseconds. If you don't form memories, it's not like being unconscious; it is the same thing as being unconscious. Consciousness - like all memories - is an input to the next set of decisions the brain will make, not an output, nor a part of the decision making process.

As far as I am aware this hypothesis is consistent with the latest neuroscience. If you have evidence that it is not - or a better hypothesis that is more in keeping with the evidence we have - then I would be happy to hear it.

 

[DBT]

We cannot recognize or understand anything without memory being integrated with, or 'woven' into the 'fabric' of sensory information and consciousness. Without memory function enabling recognition, comprehension and understanding, consciousness does not exist.

 

[Copernicus]

It seems to me that people are referring to "consciousness" as if it were a simple property of brain activity, but we all know very well that it is made up of a lot of functional components, any of which might be more or less functioning properly or at full capacity. We are obviously conscious to some degree during dreams, but that isn't being fully conscious in the sense that we are aware of our surroundings. Nevertheless, there is a part of the mind that is monitoring its surroundings while we sleep, because we can be woken up by noises or someone speaking our name. People suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's disease are conscious and in control, but they are not in full control of their faculties. That is, their memory and reasoning abilities are not what one would consider normal.

I never know quite what to make of eliminitavist claims that thought, memory, or consciousness are "illusions", because such claims imply that such things could be real in a way that they are actually not real. Usually, what eliminativists seem to be getting at is that one can explain certain aspects of mental function only by reducing them to their components, whereupon it becomes pointless to talk about the system that the components are a part of. For example, describing a wave of water in terms of the motions of water molecules bumping into each other renders the concept of a wave somewhat meaningless, since waves don't exist from the perspective of molecules, only local forces on the behavior of individual molecules.

What I'm trying to get at is that equating minds with brains leads to that kind of eliminative reductionism, but it shouldn't be taken too seriously. From the perspective of our everyday existence, minds and brains are two very different things that, to paraphrase Sean Carroll, occupy very different ontological domains. You can link mental functionality to physical brain activity, but that doesn't mean that something like conscious awareness is literally an illusion. It is even conceivable that two very different physical systems might give rise to what we would consider real consciousness. That is, there is no good reason to assume that minds are dependent on the physical stuff that DNA-based brains consist of. The component ingredients that interact to create a mind might come from different sources.

 

[DBT]

Yet the available evidence supports the proposition that consciousness is an activity of a brain, albeit a mental representation of the world and self that is based on information acquired from multiple sources.....

 

[ruby sparks]

Interesting optical illusion. Stare fixedly at the centre of the image, without moving your gaze, and the colours gradually fade away:



The colours are always there on the screen, the visual information is entering your eyes and you are conscious, but your brain stops paying attention (apparently)

 

[ruby sparks]

The component ingredients that interact to create a mind might come from different sources.

Pixie dust, perhaps?

 

[Copernicus]

Yet the available evidence supports the proposition that consciousness is an activity of a brain, albeit a mental representation of the world and self that is based on information acquired from multiple sources.....

Yes, and the available evidence supports the proposition that waves are an activity of water molecules. That doesn't mean that waves are also just illusions. If you go down that path, then you are also going to have to admit that brains, too, are illusions, because brains are ultimately an activity of neurons, which are an activity of molecules, atoms, and electrons, etc., etc...

 

[untermensche]

The colours are always there on the screen, the visual information is entering your eyes and you are conscious, but your brain stops paying attention (apparently)

The visual experience is mostly brain dependent.

But a person can change the perspective of a Necker cube at will.

With their mind and nothing else.

 

[Copernicus]

Interesting optical illusion. Stare fixedly at the centre of the image, without moving your gaze, and the colours gradually fade away:

View attachment 15582

The colours are always there on the screen, the visual information is entering your eyes and you are conscious, but your brain stops paying attention (apparently)

That is a clever optical illusion. Of course, it has something to do with the foreground/background effect that we impose on perceptions. That is what allows us to control the orientation of the Necker cube and to pick out a voice in a cacophony of voices--the so-called cocktail party effect. When we focus on an object visually, other objects in the visual field go out of focus or become blurred. Other voices in a cocktail party become background noise in comparison to the voices we are listening to.

The colors in the image are intentionally blurry, making it easy to render all of the colors as background when we focus on the surrounding whiteness, but we can see the colors again by refocusing on the image itself rather than its surroundings.

The process of foregrounding is also deeply embedded in all layers of linguistic structure. That is, each phrase in a linguistic expression is built up around a "head" word, and the structure itself is built up recursively by embedding phrases inside of phrases. Focus is a basic functional component of awareness.

 

[DBT]

Yet the available evidence supports the proposition that consciousness is an activity of a brain, albeit a mental representation of the world and self that is based on information acquired from multiple sources.....

Yes, and the available evidence supports the proposition that waves are an activity of water molecules. That doesn't mean that waves are also just illusions. If you go down that path, then you are also going to have to admit that brains, too, are illusions, because brains are ultimately an activity of neurons, which are an activity of molecules, atoms, and electrons, etc., etc...

I'm not saying that consciousness itself is an illusion. The content of consciousness may include a variety of illusions, but consciousness is a collection of attributes related to the brains internal 'map' of the world and self, a means of negotiating the environment and interacting with it. Which may be sound or may be flawed, depending on the condition of the brain.

 

[ruby sparks]

Interesting optical illusion. Stare fixedly at the centre of the image, without moving your gaze, and the colours gradually fade away:

View attachment 15582

The colours are always there on the screen, the visual information is entering your eyes and you are conscious, but your brain stops paying attention (apparently)

That is a clever optical illusion. Of course, it has something to do with the foreground/background effect that we impose on perceptions. That is what allows us to control the orientation of the Necker cube and to pick out a voice in a cacophony of voices--the so-called cocktail party effect. When we focus on an object visually, other objects in the visual field go out of focus or become blurred. Other voices in a cocktail party become background noise in comparison to the voices we are listening to.

The colors in the image are intentionally blurry, making it easy to render all of the colors as background when we focus on the surrounding whiteness, but we can see the colors again by refocusing on the image itself rather than its surroundings.

The process of foregrounding is also deeply embedded in all layers of linguistic structure. That is, each phrase in a linguistic expression is built up around a "head" word, and the structure itself is built up recursively by embedding phrases inside of phrases. Focus is a basic functional component of awareness.

Cool. I had read a suggestion that it was about attention, but perhaps that's related to what you are saying. I wonder if there are similar auditory illusions in which, because the noise is so vague (or uniform) that we would stop hearing it. For touch, would we/do we stop feeling something if it doesn't change or have any (or enough) contrasts.

My intention was to try to link attention to consciousness, in some way, since it had come up before.