Spot on. This was exactly my point. That even if error detection as a function resides in the AAC (fMRI is again to be taken with a pinch of salt), there are others that we might have inferred occur there. And yet, there might be many more than that, that could easily negate the concept of ego as a concept residing holistically at the AAC.

I am only mentioning this, to avoid jumping into wild theories on AAC sizes and attribution on animals (which would be nothing short of a modern phrenology), and inferring their egos and whatnot. Hope you see where I'm coming from with this

When it comes to mammals, we will be able to see definitive proof in the future as to what exactly they experience, such as the development of dream interpreting with fMRI. Once we reach the point when we can relay the images a living being sees to a computer screen, and thoughts as well, then we will stop the conjecture.

I wanted to add that the ability to interpret brain activity has come pretty far- scientists or researchers say that currently, they can look at the pattern of brain activity and definitively determine what a subject is visualizing in their thoughts.

Pretty amazing, really, but as one can probably sense, this is only the beginning.

Tin foil hats, however, should keep our thoughts private, so rest assured...

Haha imagine if that ends up being true??????

thoughts, probably not...but images have already been projected on a screen, by electrodes monitoring Brodmann area 17. there's even a thread on it in the main forum...from four years ago.

This will most likely never happen (the "definitive" proof as you put it). fMRI has been extensively overglorified and we know (especially the laymen) extremely little on how valid it actually is. Measuring blood flow in the brain, today, says absolutely nothing, except similarities and differences in blood flow. Recently, an experimental study found that astrocytes play a major role in working memory, which means that all our specific focus on neurons must deviate and start exploring other ways and modes of mapping out functional organisation.

fMRI is good for seeing where the blood goes on specific tasks. That's it. I do not intend to badmouth fMRI, but its predictive powers have been perceived to go through the roof, and sadly, they do not.



That sounds like exaggeration to me. We can match that pattern with a pattern we already recorded when we asked that person to visualise playing tennis (e.g). That does not mean that that pattern will not occur on other thoughts, so if we run across that pattern, it could be anything really.

..i agree with The Neural about the limitations and crudeness of MRI and other brain scanning methods in terms of showing us what is going on experientially..

the spider experiments could be interpreted as indicate visual/pattern alteration..
other animals brains may not be as complex as humans', but this does not mean we should assume they are not experiencing visual, auditory and other perceptual changes..

also, mice/rats show fear of things which 'aren't there' under various hallucinogens..will try to dig up some refs..
.

i once knew a guy who look LSD with his dog..they seemed to share a communion and a similarity of experience..
.

I know I am being pedantic, but it's fMRI that is to be taken lightly. MRI is wonderful in showing us structural information.



You know, the dog needs to have described its impressions to infer that they shared a similar experience

Just joking But as for its feasibility, it is not uncommon, since dogs and most mammals share similar biochemistry with humans, than insectoids do. That is not to say that insects will not feel or experience anything, as you said. But mice have a very similar system, which is why any sorts of drugs are being tested on them.

^..point noted..

i guess i just meant we still can't hook someone up and say 'they're seeing a blue self transforming machine elf' yet..and also, how much of the brain pattern we might detect of that experience is is the processing of it rather than the actual perception?..i.e a mouse may just see something and freak out..a human might process whether it's an alien or an angel or 'just a hallucination'..and then freak out..

as for the man and his dog..they were both staring a things which 'weren't there'..
i'd love to know how similar their brain scans were..
.


ps. a good little book on this topic which, alas, i don't own, but have skimmed through is
Animals and Psychedelics by Giorgio Samorini (discoverer of the AQ1 Phalaris strain)
from the Amazon description:

Spot on. An efficient analogy would be that we might know all the pistons, cogs and machinations of a car, we might know all their parameters, that they move back and forth under this and that condition, and they move differently in another condition etc. But we will never know how the car actually "feels" when these parameters change, we cannot know what aspects of its perception and affective states are changing along with the conditions. Unless it tells us of course, and even then, another car might tell us that under the same conditions, it feels differently than the other car.

At a loss

I have to apologize for relaying this information crudely. It was late, I was tired, I flubbed it pretty bad.

Now that I think more, it is exactly like what benzyme stated- The activity in the areas of the brain responsible for processing visual images were monitored somehow and a presentation of various images calibrated their instruments until the values collected by the measuring instruments themselves could be processed through systemic analysis to determine the image being viewed and project it roughly to a screen

It sounds like an exaggeration because I didn't bother to be precise with my explanation- while it wasn't wholly inaccurate, measuring devices that were calibrated to the visual images being presented were what was "looking" at "brain activity" and determining what a subject was physically seeing. Thoughts or visualization exercises were not a part of the experiment.

Sorry for my lazy relaying of the information, I'll try not to do it again.

I sort of wonder why folks are so quick to conclude that thoughts will never be interpreted by analysis or some sort of process that is far beyond our current crude imaging devices and the measurement of electric activity. Perhaps in the future detailed maps and imaging of cellular brain structure will be developed and a similar calibration of an individual's entire thought processes could somehow be managed. I know a professor at UMASS amherst who is involved with calibrating EEG input of a precise nature with subjects that listen to words. If language is in some way the basis of complex thought processes, and I am not entirely sure but have a hunch that it is, then that would be the basis for this kind of future development in a kind of mechanical thought analysis.

I'd call her and pick her brain but it's been a few years, and I'll never use facebook again... she's probably on LinkedIn though.

I think I'm a bit out of my league in terms of this conversation but it's really interesting; I'll kick back and read what all you bright folks have to say from here on out. Peace

Don't apologise, this is a healthy discussion

You're right that it may be possible in the future. But we need to develop different tools for such approaches. EEG for instance is extremely weak to decipher brain processes (most of all, due to the limited coverage it offers - pyramidal neurons only, and only those aligned in a fashion vertically to the skull). fMRI just blood flow, MEG similar to fMRI etc. Recently I read an article where they used nanobots to deliver fluorescent paint on pre and post synapses, to see when and how they excite/inhibit depending on the task. Still, we will be measuring things at the same neuronal level.

We need to change level if we want to understand more. The level of neuronal network activities that light in synchrony/asynchrony may be the next best approach, that is closer to the high level processes of the user. In a way, we need to move from the C++ approach, to the MATlab/Python one, sort of speak.

..yeah conjectural discussion is healthy..

sØrce wrote:

..i don't discount this as a future possibility..

from the p.o.v. of the topic, the question is whether animals (incl. insects) experience hallucinations on substances which do the same in humans..
i see no reason why not, especially in mammals which, as The Neural says, are not that different in terms of architecture..just simpler..
also, we know for instance that many substances, like morphine, have similar effects in animals..
i just personally think the ability to think about, analyse or categorize in language terms is more complex in humans..

Okey doke,

It's amazing that that was done with nanobots... also, a good sign when ideas surpass available technology. Just saying

If I understand you correctly, you're talking about the activity at the level of the brain cell as a goal for measurement before real interpretation of brain activity in terms of thoughts can take place.

I have faith that some technology will be developed before long that does this in a precise manner- mapping the entire neuronal network down to individual brain cells. I couldn't really propose the technology because I'm just a guy who does everyday stuff mostly, but something akin to nanobots being distributed in such a way that electrical activity could be pinpointed and measured at the cellular level and relayed to a model that recorded the measurements. Like setting up a grid within the brain and triangulating the elecrical activity. Sounds farfetched at the moment, but so did everything at one point.

I'm a guy that refused a brain surgery procedure using crude instruments like catheters for cranial angioscopy and partial arterial occlusion for an aneurysm using platinum coils, in favor of holding out another decade or so for better technology like nanobots, as I was given 50 years of no problems easily, to agree to operative procedures with a 12% chance of negative postoperative outcomes... it'd be just dumb. So thankful I saw through my greedy brain surgeon's game and did my own research. But that's off-topic.

It seems clear that this type of calibration of brain activity would be dependent on individual differences and perhaps a kind of reporting on thoughts and feelings that transpired according to the subject during various moments of the calibration, but maybe not if areas of the brain are understood more discriminately and the bodily system is measured holistically to account for emotions and responses that are a part of the entire thought process.

This kind of technology might pave the way for more technology that is capable of implanting thoughts and experiences through the mechanical electrochemical stimulation of areas of the brain while the subject is in a state of complete sensory deprivation ala "the Matrix," which I'm afraid of completely due to the dehumanizing nature of it all, but it doesn't seem outside of the realm of what could one day be possible.

Off-topic a bit some more- We could already be within a similar Matrix, and discovering this technology could be a kind of loop or fraction of a larger whole. Not to sound too crazy.

To be real, I'm a bit afraid that if machines become intelligent and able to "grow" (print their own microchips and build upon themselves) then they might decide that the easiest thing to do with the problem of humans, aside from destroying us or consuming us for energy is to plug us into one of these simulations indefinitely.

Not to sound too crazy.

Chinese proverb (which is a curse misinterpreted): May you live in interesting times.

Oh sheesh I'm way off topic all over the place there ^ sorry.

Feel free to read my post and not reply, I'm a bit irresponsible with my posts lately, but I'm going to leave it up anyway.

I've personally observed a cat that was completely gone on Ketamine. It was really obvious that the cat couldn't see much of the outside world at all, and responses were exaggerated and seemed to be completely based in fear of noises and any sensory-stimulus, it couldn't stand up much.... the whole thing seemed like a sub-anaesthetic Ketamine dose, which I knew it was, because i was in a Vet's office and the cat had just had surgery. It was an extended "emergence reaction". I think it's pretty clear that mammals can trip or feel drug effects similar to humans on some level. Pretty hard to suffer ego death without an ego construct, maybe an alpha male silverback ape or something would be a prime candidate for that type of research.

The basis of insect "thinking" is more or less chemical signals and some sort of response mechanism? I'm not clear on it, but Nepetalactone (catnip active alkaloid) is an insecticide.

..i like your posts sØrce..plenty to think about..thank you..

nanobots in the brain, cats on ketamine, and insects on catnip!

..back to bugs..
i'm sadly nowhere near my modest library at the moment, but i know of some interesting reports from australia regarding bees and a particular Apocynaceae species ..
the reports (recounted in Lassak & McCarthy 1984, from western NSW) were that bees grazing on the flowers would become apparently intoxicated, fall to the ground, and stagger and walk about in circles seemingly disorientated..this lasts for around 10-15 minutes..
upon recovering, the bees then fly back to the flowers and do this all over again, repeating the intoxication several times before moving on to other flowers..
while the plant is in flower they do this most days..apparently voluntarily seeking this kind of intoxication..

Exactly. Cellular level is a very low-level. Sort of (and literally) a binary I/O (input/output) measurement of 1 and 0 (or Yes and No) activity (excitation/inhibition).

The whole field of research understanding affective states by measuring this kind of activity, would be nothing short of trying to understand what makes clicking "Ok" on a textbox provide you with "Program now installed succesfully", by looking at individual I/O routes on the motherboard. What made the software jump from "Ok" to "Program now..." is an enormous combination of arguments and interactions, that allows the software to proceed to a different state, rather than one or two minor changes in the low-level architecture. We need to focus more on gross activity of whole population of neurons, to start grazing the surface of complex affective states (and thoughts eventually). To give you an example, as benzyme mentioned, monitoring V1 in the brain and projecting it onto a screen, will bring us nothing more than lines and their orientation. Colours, texture, depth perception, position in space etc, are taking place in a feedforward loop from V2 and on. So if we want a holistic picture of what is someone perceiving, we need to monitor vast numbers of neurons. Or to develop different tools that would decipher these processes.

Back to bugs

nen, bees are extremely interesting. I read somewhere that bees intoxicated with ethanol, when they return to the hive still intoxicated are killed by the rest of the drones (gross misconduct?). Thankfully, whatever substance those particular Apocynaceae species offer the bees, may be short lasting from what you are describing; a kind of "safe" quick high for the bees that can go undetected back at the hive!

We can certainly infer that substances are as effective (if not more) to insects, possibly through different mechanisms, and maybe with different effects.

Oh, and that bees are most likely pleasure seeking beings



Could be. We cannot know yet for sure. But absolutely, things that can kill insects have been proven to be very pleasurable for humans and primates: Nicotine.

..The Neural wrote: ..ha,ha..drunk and disorderly.. those naughty workers..!
..true, though having grown Nicotiana tabacum i can attest that some bugs do eat the leaves, albeit in sparing amounts compared to other plants..but some insects like it..they just choose their dose carefully..

I think mammals can get high in a variety of ways.
There is a video about it on youtube, chemicals and animals, I will search for it right now.

Orangutans eat a bug that has a morphine-like alkaloid as much as possible, you guys wont believe it. A nexian linked me to it, its like Animals and medicine or somethin. BRB

But I tell you truly that animals get high. YOu gotta know they will haha