(2019-07-07, 03:17 PM)Raf999 Wrote: I still don't get what was wrong about the link I have posted. It seems that Alex, or whoever does the transcriptions for him, did not correct the mistake even after being noticed on the skeptico forum. Now I may be wrong, of course, but until I see some proof my idea remains.
The proof is in the very link you posted:
Quote:Update 2 days later: The errors referred to below have now been corrected.
and, in the comments:
Quote:Alex has corrected all the transcription errors that I gave him.
Comment by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos — February 21, 2012 @ 3:37 pm
Just to try to tie in the contribution of Alex and Skeptiko to the subject matter of this thread: Alex has, over the years, interviewed those who have reported an NDE (or similar), those who have been present (medical staff, family, etc.) and those who are critics of such reports. Yes, Alex is biased (aren't we all?) and his questions are sometimes amount to badgering but I can't think of anyone else who has managed to get so many from all sides to the microphone to explain their views.
As for criticism of Alex himself, I guess quite a few of us have had cause to do so. I was banned from Skeptiko for doing so which is why I was involved in the founding of this forum. But I hold no grudge or animosity towards him and fully appreciate that without him, this forum would not exist and we would not be having this discussion now. My criticism had nothing to do with any doubt about his integrity but everything to do with the direction he seemed to be taking Skeptiko. I, like several others here, have little interest in chasing conspiracy theories.
I think that if people come here with what might be termed a RationalWiki perspective and try to pass that off as evidential or considered, then some of us will get pretty pissed off because that is the kind of crap we fight against constantly.
I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. Freeman Dyson
(2019-07-06, 05:29 PM)Chris Wrote: It's been twelve years since he he made that error. Someone must have pointed it out to him already.
I wouldn't assume that off-hand, but even in that event, that doesn't mean a polite inquiry on this topic wouldn't be accepted.
(2019-07-07, 08:13 AM)Chris Wrote: That recent paper is behind a paywall, but this older one by the first author surveys the literature and explains some of the thinking: https://www.uv.es/revispsi/articulos1.05/12-BERTOLO.pdf
Thanks. It's an interesting paper, and I'm afraid I don't understand it all. Blind patients drawing imagery was certainly intriguing, though it's still fuzzy to me how they would end up with any idea of what things look like to begin with. The paper doesn't mention epigenetics, but that's the first thing that came to my mind.
Quote:The difficulty of studying visual imagery resides on the little objectivity of evaluating its processes. The visual imagery experience, unlike memory, language and motor control studies, is personal and difficult to access (Kosslyn & Ochsner, 1994).
...I would think memory is even more personal and difficult for another person to access.
Reply
1
The following 1 user Likes Will's post:1 user Likes Will's post • Ika Musume
(2019-07-07, 11:14 PM)Will Wrote: I wouldn't assume that off-hand, but even in that event, that doesn't mean a polite inquiry on this topic wouldn't be accepted.
I don't seem any scope for an inquiry on the specific question of whether those blind from birth experience REM sleep. Judging from the scientific literature, there doesn't seem to be any question about it.
There is also the broader question of whether Long is aware of the continuing work on whether the blind also experience visual imagery in their dreams, and if so whether he feels it affects his published arguments about NDEs. That might be interesting to follow up, but I don't think I'd better add it to my own list of things to do, which is quite long already.
(2019-07-07, 11:14 PM)Will Wrote: I wouldn't assume that off-hand, but even in that event, that doesn't mean a polite inquiry on this topic wouldn't be accepted.
Thanks. It's an interesting paper, and I'm afraid I don't understand it all. Blind patients drawing imagery was certainly intriguing, though it's still fuzzy to me how they would end up with any idea of what things look like to begin with. The paper doesn't mention epigenetics, but that's the first thing that came to my mind.
...I would think memory is even more personal and difficult for another person to access.
People blind from birth still function well in space time, indeed in some particular areas they have better skills, and perform much better than the sighted. so they still develop a spatial model of the world, but they definitely will have problems understanding colour without sight, and also because colour arises from processing in the brain.
(2019-07-07, 11:20 AM)tim Wrote: According to the majority consensus in anaesthesiology, patients don't dream under adequate general anaesthesia, Max.
"General anaesthesia, in contrast, aims to do just that, creating an unresponsive drug-induced coma or controlled unconsciousness that is deeper and more detached from reality even than sleep, with no memories of any events during that period. As Robert Sanders, an anaesthetist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, puts it: “We’ve apparently ablated this period of time from that person’s experience.” (During the operation, the patient may also be given painkillers to ease their recovery when they wake up from surgery.)"
I have to admit I am pretty disappointed with some of the answers provided by alleged Anesthesia-trained responders.
If a patient in under adequate anesthesia level when used as the primary technique, it does not matter what is the agent used is (propofol, volatile anesthetics, etc), there is sufficient depression of higher brain functions such that dreaming is not theoretically possible, since REM sleep occurs at lighter level where dreams occur.
However, if the depth of anesthesia is reduced to allow for REM sleep, either the patient is getting “light”, or emerging to awareness, typically at the end of the procedure, or even in the Recovery area.
Dream research has proven that “full” dreams can occur in a very short period of REM sleep, even seconds. These can easily occur while the patient is waking up.
In 25 years, no patient has ever reported to have had a dream under a full general anesthetic, but many reports what a great “sleep” that was. I do admit it is fun to ask the patient “where do you want to go for the next few hours”, sometimes due to the premedication “cocktail” provided, the answers can be quite interesting.
At levels appropriate for surgery, general anesthesia can functionally approximate brain-stem death,21 because patients are unconscious, have depressed brain-stem reflexes, do not respond to nociceptive stimuli, have no apneic drive, and require cardiorespiratory and thermoregulatory support.9
We know that some people are dreaming whilst they are under general anaesthesia, and not at the end, because we can put headphones on them, and play them audio tapes, and the words on the tapes can get incorporated into their explicitly recalled experiences in interesting associative ways. Some even recall the tape recordings word for word. Others can be shown to have implicit recall by testing responses, showing learning still can take place even though no explicit recall is available to the subjects.
We don’t understand how consciousness comes about (how I have experiences), neither do we understand how anaesthetics work. But we have good solid evidence from studies that many people recall experiences under G.A., I would go with the evidence, and not with the speculations from people who incorrectly suggest they definitely know what is and isn’t possible under GA. Evidence always trumps theory.
As someone who refers to the validity of patients near death experiences under GA all the time, it’s strange to me to see you using science to argue for the idea that people cant dream during GA.
By the personal experience of my mother, and what the doctors told her after that, I'd say people can dream under common G.A.
The point is that REM sleep isn't common dreaming. It has a pattern on the EEG (correct me if I am wrong), and it should show up. Until now, Dr. Parnia and previous studies found no such pattern in patients during CA
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
Mastodon