TR: So how do you plan to understand the link between activity in specific parts of the brain and consciousness?
BN: I don't now how to figure it out, but it seems to me that stimulating a human brain such as my own would be a good place to start. If I could stimulate my MT, then, presumably I would know and could say whether I really see the [actual] dots moving [as in the monkey experiments] or something else altogether. This would be a start toward identifying the [specific aspects of consciousness that accompany] neural activation at different points in the nervous system.
TR: Do you think you could really get regulatory approval? What are the major ethical issues?
BN: Getting approval to do something like this would be difficult. Any human experiments in this country are under rigorous scrutiny. Lawyers and administrators at institutions take a dim view of this kind of thing because of the liability issues. And there is a definite slippery slope argument. I might be able to make a case for my own experiment, but it could set precedent for others for whom it would be more risky.
For example, if I did this experiment, it would probably be a big deal and get in the newspapers. Some young graduate student might see it as a way to get ahead in his career and decide to do it. He might put himself at greater risk than I would. Maybe he would probe deeper into his brain, where there is more risk of damaging the vasculature. It would be uncomfortable to think that I was responsible in part for that, even if my own adventure turned out just fine.
TR: Do you really want to do this?
BN: Well, I've thought about it very carefully. I've talked to neurosurgeons, both in the United States and outside the country where the regulatory environment is less strict, about how practical and risky it is. If the risk of serious postsurgical complications was one in one hundred, I wouldn't do it. If it was one in one thousand, I would seriously consider doing it. To my chagrin, most surgeons estimate the risk to be somewhere in between my benchmarks.
Comments
02/13/2006
Posts:1
02/14/2006
Posts:1
in visual cortex but not more.
02/15/2006
Posts:1
I would love to be part of this research. I am very involved in learning about the brain since my TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) in 1973. I've come back further than just about anyone I've known with TBI (and as a Case Manager for a TBI research project and now as a vocational rehabilitation counselor who presently works with several people with TBI, I've met hundreds)
02/14/2006
Posts:1
02/15/2006
Posts:1
We can easily show that brain activity effects consciousness, but not the other way around.
02/15/2006
Posts:1
Brain activity being altered will have had an effect on coinscious activity, which subsequently had an adverse effect on brain activity. (which would then no doubt cause a serious counscious/personality shift and Bill Newsome would embark on a career change and become an artist.)
02/15/2006
Posts:1
02/15/2006
Posts:1
02/15/2006
Posts:1
http://maair.net
http://mannan.zabvision.edu.pk
02/16/2006
Posts:1
02/15/2006
Posts:1
02/16/2006
Posts:1
05/02/2006
Posts:1
07/10/2006
Posts:1
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/SAAS_Theses/SAASS_Out/Pellegrini/pellegrini.pdf
Cheers
04/26/2006
Posts:1
I fail to see what he can learn beyond the effects of normal sensory input, except that he has fooled his consciousness with false data.
02/20/2006
Posts:1
02/21/2006
Posts:1
you can stimulate a monkey all day long, but at the end of the day the monkey's response is still just oooohhh aahha ahhh oohh.
This guy will be able to describe the experience (assuming he doesn't accidentally damage his brain too much) of having his MT? stimulated.
He knows the data is false, but will be able to still experience the sensation of the stimulation and describe with great detail what occurred.
I think the fooling of the consciousness with false data is the whole point
04/13/2006
Posts:1
03/08/2006
Posts:1