This is according to a study carried out at the Tel Aviv Medical Center led by Prof. Thelma Handler, director of the brain research center at the center, who says: "This experiment, conducted for the first time in the world on such patients, demonstrates that not only do at least some patients have an emotional awareness of their surroundings, but that they are also able to create Emotional activation by internal and not only external processes"
An innovative study conducted in the laboratory for the study of emotions in the Center for Brain Functions of the Tel Aviv Medical Center found evidence that the brains of patients in a vegetative state respond to emotional stimuli. This finding is the first evidence that obsessive-compulsive patients have an emotional awareness of their surroundings. As mentioned, vegetative consciousness disorder (known in the parlance as a "plant") is a very serious medical condition caused by an extensive brain injury. These patients lie in their bed, fed by artificial nutrition, but breathe on their own and even show cycles of wakefulness and sleep. However, despite these animal signs, the patients do not react at all to external stimuli (such as speech or pain), and especially do not communicate and do not show any sign of awareness of the environment or themselves.
Dr. Hagi Sharon and Yotam Pasternak from the Tel Aviv Medical Center carried out the research under the guidance of Prof. Thelma Handler, director of the center. The two examined the brain response of four vegetative patients while viewing unfamiliar faces versus faces personally known to the patient (family members, close friends and pictures of the patient himself). During the viewing, the patients underwent an fMRI test, which, as mentioned, allows you to monitor brain functions in real time and compare these reactions to the reactions observed in healthy subjects. "The scan demonstrated that while viewing faces in general, there is an activation of the brain area responsible for visual processing of faces. That is, the brain of the patients knows how to distinguish between a face and other objects in the external world," explains Dr. Hagai Sharon, the director of the study, who adds that this is an innovation, "since until now it was not known whether the cognitive skills of these patients even allow them to absorb complex stimuli in the environment and distinguish between Type of stimuli (for example, faces versus inanimate objects)". It was also found that viewing a familiar face of a relative caused the activation of brain centers responsible for processing emotional value and autobiographical memories.
This is a very complex process in order to carry out brain areas to respond and share information with each other in order to absorb the visual stimulus, decipher its content, and create associations to specific memories of the viewer. Indeed, measuring the connectivity between these areas showed that they really work in a coordinated network, similar to the process that occurs in healthy subjects.
Despite the complex brain activity, the question remains whether this is mainly automatic brain processing or whether these patients have an awareness of their surroundings. In order to answer this question, the patients were asked in the second and unique part of the experiment to perform an active mental activity: to try and imagine the faces of their parents. Face imaginal produces a characteristic brain activity pattern that can be detected using fMRI. Imagining a familiar face produces the same pattern in combination with the activation of emotion centers which are also awakened due to the emotional value of the imagined stimulus. That is, it is possible to see if the subject actually performs the imagination task he is asked to perform and if it produces an integrated processing of the imagination's content together with the accompanying emotion similar to healthy subjects. "Surprisingly, one patient demonstrated a complex brain activity identical to that of healthy subjects performing the same imagination task, while another patient demonstrated a partial response," notes Dr. Sharon.
According to Prof. Thelma Handler, director of the center: "This experiment, which was conducted for the first time in the world on such patients, demonstrates that not only do at least some of the patients have an emotional awareness of their environment (that is, they process their stimuli from the environment according to their emotional meaning) but that they are also able to create an emotional activation by Internal and not only external processes (as we all do while thinking, daydreaming, etc.). Beyond the enormous importance of this fact in understanding the condition of these patients, we hope that this discovery will pave the way for new approaches in the treatment and rehabilitation of these seriously ill patients."
26 תגובות
Hello Mike and Nisim!
Mike! I make myself clear again.
In a non-mathematical world, even though the term proof is used, I argue that it is necessary to clarify the term "proof"
A proof in mathematics does not correspond to a proof in physics
And a broad consensus is needed for this
The essential difference between mathematics and physics is expressed in the fact that the world of mathematics is built from a very limited world to a very broad world
I myself have no "proof" as I think proof should be and I have no proof that the mind itself contains consciousness. I believe in the existence of the soul/cognition/consciousness as a separate part of the brain because: (I mentioned above)
Consciousness. Conscious recognition at the same time of hearing/sight/pain/smell/taste signals passing through the brain in different areas
Miracles! To your question if I understood correctly. List of attributes on one leg Knowledge/pain/emotion/sensation/wisdom/free choice
I will end with a mathematical discovery that through feeling I was able to discover and prove mathematically
At the time, a scientist named Armstrong defined a group of numbers containing a certain property as Armstrong numbers:
The number 153 for example belongs to the group because 3^3+3^3+5^1=153
I was able to find out and prove that if we look at the following numbers 165033, 166500333, 166650003333 and so on ad infinitum then for each such number divided into 3 numbers as follows for example:
3^333333 + 3^500000 + 3^166666 = 166666500000333333
And this infinite group is a subgroup of a wider group, there are 7 more families with this feature. You are welcome to check.
Yossi Simon
If the soul is separate from the brain - then what would a person without a soul look like? What qualities of man are the result of the soul?
I did not ask for proof expressing "absolute truth". I believe yours (the computer has no ads). I will content myself with the proof that is within the scope of "very high probability" as is accepted in science.
Joseph and Mike Hello!
Yosef, it is certainly possible that this unit is a soul, since I have an indirect awareness of it, so I have no idea whether it occupies space or not (we, as ordinary human beings, are used to concepts such as space, size, and weight, and time) I myself am very satisfied if Even the sub-particles that science characterizes do take place in the sense that at the exact same landmark in space, according to mathematical calculation, two "factors" indifferent to each other can appear. (I named factors so as not to get involved with a cumbersome definition).
Mike I'm expressing my "feeling" as far as I'm concerned in my day to day life the concept of proof has meaning. I fully understand and accept the concept of proof in mathematics. In other sciences it is necessary to define and agree 1. What is called proof. 2. Does the proof that we will define according to limitations that we all express the absolute truth (as I see in mathematics) or is the proof within the scope of a very high probability and until it is not disproved it is acceptable to us.
I believe that tomorrow more than a thousand vehicles will pass through the Gaha interchange, I am not able to prove it.
I believe that the entire planet Venus is made up of the known atomic elements, I have no way of proving this.
I believe in many things that I have no way of proving, and I believe that everyone eventually believes in things that they don't really understand.
"The very fact that I remember at least some of the details, indicates that there is a certain reality that belongs to me and is part of my self. "
This reality is your memory system. By the way, there is no place in science for a sentence like "I believe". You must bring a reference for your words or at least give a reason.
I am not denying the reality of the soul by the way, based on tradition. But I don't think there is currently a way to prove its existence.
Yossi, I will refer to the last part of your sentence:
"In any case, I believe that there is one "object" that is the main manager, therefore I believe that at the end of the process, communication is carried out to the last station to a destination whose features we do not know at this stage and it really doesn't matter what this destination is called."
The last station in my opinion must be outside the brain, because if it was in the brain then it would be part of the other units
And there was no need to single it out or differentiate it from the other units.
In my opinion, this is the only one called: "soul" by the religions and it plays on this whole orchestra
It also does not belong to the body, therefore it is also considered eternal.
Lanisim and Mike Hello!
First of all, consciousness for me?
I am looking at an invitation to a certain event, which contains a picture and details. The sciences of physics/chemistry/and biology/mathematics know how to describe very well the path that the description of the image goes through until it penetrates my consciousness. The very fact that I remember at least some of the details, indicates that there is a certain reality that belongs to me and is a part of my self, of which I describe in the concept of "consciousness". The question is what does it consist of? If we imagine ourselves to a computer, then a lot of communications in different protocols and a lot of information pass through the computer. However, no part of the computer (or so I believe) has any awareness of what is happening.
If we refer to the brain, the brain contains many separate areas, and in any case I believe that there is one "object" that is the main manager, therefore I believe that at the end of the process communication is carried out to a final station to a destination whose properties we do not know at this stage and it really does not matter what this destination is called .
Yossi, how do you define "consciousness"?
Yossi Simon
Consciousness/soul are emergent properties, like temperature is a result of particle movement, and a river is a result of water molecules.
There is nothing beyond these cells, but their combination produces something that cannot be understood from the cells themselves.
Hello miracles!
Definitely yes! The question is how do you define a brain? Is soul/consciousness/spirit/…. composed of biological cells?
Yossi Simon
Are you implying that there is something beyond the mind? Consciousness is part of the brain. And the soul.
In my humble opinion, the brain serves as a communication relay station between a "task computer" (a concept borrowed from reality that we have not yet been able to decipher and can be called soul/consciousness/consciousness and more) and the rest of the human body.
Because otherwise Ni is the same final destination that the media reaches in all respects?
And it is possible that the task computer has additional channels to absorb the environment.
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=681907
What are you serious? Are you arguing about semantics?
What is input and what is output? Open a dictionary.
I'm personally pretty convinced that Mike is more offensive by definition, but it's really not worth anyone's time
In my opinion, the next step is to try to get these paralyzed people to respond with the help of a computer:
http://www.calcalist.co.il/internet/articles/0,7340,L-3601193,00.html
again. You can say that "you mean" in your words sensory input, and physical output of the animal. You cannot say that this is the only input and output that exists in the brain.
I mentioned as an example the similitude mentioned in the article, similitude is also, among other things, an output resulting from the sensory input, the current research tries to prove that the sensory input creates an output of similitude in the plant. The fact that imagination is chemical electrical activity and not muscle movement does not make it a mere input.
Mike - I specifically wrote: "A reaction of the brain is not an output. Output involves muscle activation..." And to be clear - input is what you perceive with your senses (sight, hearing, etc.). What happens inside the brain is neither input nor output (it is the processing process of the input that may produce an output). The output is what you say or do in response to the input and as mentioned it involves physical movement. A person in a vegetative state does not normally produce an output.
Unfortunately, it seems that science these days lacks any knowledge of brain activity.
MRI devices have been around for several years, but neuroscientists have not been able to utilize this device effectively.
There are many people who suffer from brain diseases (mental illnesses) but they are not examined with the help of MRI and rope.
In my opinion, every brain patient is entitled and must undergo an MRI examination immediately at the stage of starting his treatment.
And this is because this test is neither invasive nor offensive. Compared to this test, every "medicine" given today is undoubtedly offensive.
In my opinion, only tests like MRI can answer the question "What's wrong?" And only after we know what is wrong will it be possible to give the right treatment.
Mike
"Aria, when you write a sentence like "there is an input and there is no output", you start from the assumption that the average reader knows which action group you call input and which result you call output." - I understood what he meant. You seem not to understand. And you still attack him as if the mistake is his.
Arya, when you write a sentence like "there is an input and there is no output", you start from the assumption that the average reader knows which action group you call input and which result you call output. Every defined operation in the brain has infinite sub-operations and billions of inputs and outputs, and if you do not specify the operation precisely it is impossible to know what you mean.
From the present article it appears that following the act of identification in the plant brain, an act of imagination is carried out. Therefore, similarity is the output of identification. Unless you believe that the brain activity they discovered in the test is merely a complementary action to the action of identification, and you mean to say that identification is an input that does not create any significant mental output in the plant's brain. This is the question that researchers still do not know how to answer. Significant actions beyond the physical actions you mentioned in order are for example feeling, identification, labeling, decision making, imagination, thought.
Mike and hole here. Where is it written in the article and what is it even an output of imagination? A response of the brain is not an output. Output involves muscle activation; For example speaking...
ב
It says they are sick. Apparently they are not injured.
It is wrong to call them sick.
Brain damage is not a disease.
Very nice Mike!
Leo, the imagination is an output. They discovered that some patients have an output of imagination.
In short: in patients who are plants, the input works, but the output does not.