Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Tool To Measure Consciousness

Posted by samzenpus on from the hello-in-there dept.

bmahersciwriter writes "The line between consciousness and non-consciousness is thin, hard to define and, as the Terri Schiavo case taught us, often rife with ethical quandaries. A research team is developing a tool that will be able to quantify just how conscious a person is, which could prove to be quite useful for research and clinical practices. From the article: 'The metric relies on the idea that consciousness involves widespread communication between different areas of the brain, with each region performing specialized functions. Loss of consciousness during sleep or anaesthesia, or from brain injury, may be caused by the disengagement of brain regions from one another.'"

9 of 151 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe they could use this as a test by korbulon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To determine if you're eligible to vote. Or have kids. Or be allowed outside your cage.

    1. Re:Maybe they could use this as a test by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sad thing is; I can't tell whether you're joking or being serious.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  2. Great, another workplace metric... by vomitology · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder how long till my ATC (Average Time Conscious) shows up in my annual review...

    --
    ~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
  3. Terri Schiavo, what? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless my memory is grossly faulty here, Schiavo was considered an atypically unambiguous case medically (with massive amounts of brain that just weren't present anymore, much less electrically active or not); but was a sordid story in messy family feuds being adopted by culture warriors, diagnosis-by-video being performed by histrionic congressmen, and whatnot.

    A better understanding of the neurological correlates of consciousness would certainly be a welcome development; but it would never have saved that farce.

    1. Re:Terri Schiavo, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the summary was referring to the Schiavo case in terms of "rife with ethical quandaries" in relation to people's right to die, or in the Schiavo case the right to let someone die even though they can't give consent. Remember that whenever politics is involved, and the Schiavo case was rife with political grandstanding and opportunity, that anyone whose position is different from yours is being unethical.

      The Schiavo family was put through a lot, especially by members of the Schiavo family. When the politicians and the press pile on it becomes a circus and a hot button issue.

    2. Re:Terri Schiavo, what? by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was no ethical quandary in the Schiavo case. She was not conscious, and more or less had no brain to be conscious with. It was a clear cut case of a lost cause where the body was only being kept alive to fuel the aforementioned family feud (her parents were not a big fan of her husband, IIRC, and did not want him inheriting her estate, so they fought the issue until her estate was gone and her husband bankrupt, then finally let it go).

    3. Re:Terri Schiavo, what? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There was no ethical quandary in the Schiavo case. She was not conscious, and more or less had no brain to be conscious with. It was a clear cut case of a lost cause where the body was only being kept alive to fuel the aforementioned family feud (her parents were not a big fan of her husband, IIRC, and did not want him inheriting her estate, so they fought the issue until her estate was gone and her husband bankrupt, then finally let it go).

      The Schiavo case was an ethical travesty. Why was she kept hooked up all that time? Because of "God". It was "immoral" to "kill" her.

      Bullshit. "God" wanted her to go ahead and die. If He hadn't, He would have kept her alive, even without the equipment. It wasn't like this was temporary life support to give her time to heal. It was a prison that she couldn't escape from - worse than Guantanamo, worse than Abu Graibh, worse than the worst prison ever built by pre-technological man. Whatever consciousness she might have had was trapped in a body with no ability to move, to interact, and even to sense, for the most part. If she had been revivable after all that, she probably would have been insane. If I was to do deliberately what they did to her, "torture" would be the least unkind word used.

      And for what? If you believe that Jesus had a place waiting for her, why forcibly restrain her from joining him? Even if you believe she was destined for Hell, she was already there. What was she supposed to be doing in there? Meditating on her sins? We don't grant as much reflection time for mass-murderers. Not in Florida, which is nearly as Old-Testament as Texas when it comes to capital crimes.

      If there is any mercy in the Universe, God or no God, her consciousness fled long before they pulled the plug. Because with friends like those, who needs demonic enemies?

  4. Re:Define consciousness please by ibwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We *know* we have conscious experience.

    No. I know I have conscious experience. Anything beyond that is supposition. While it is entirely possible that I'm the only conscious entity in the universe, I find that unlikely. However, until we can explain consciousness in terms that enable me to test the consciousness of others, it will be a matter of faith that others are conscious (albeit the amount of faith required is very small).

    This research, however limited it may be, is an attempt to provide empirical underpinnings to the term consciousness. Hopefully it will get us a little closer to understanding what consciousness is but clearly this falls well short of explaining its nature in full.

  5. Re:Consciousness is a network effect by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you consider "systems" generally, as I think should be done, then the issues around consciousness get fuzzier, not more clear. If you want to build a theory of consciousness around the ideas of "complexity" and "systems" then this leads to pretty strange possibilities involving systems of systems being eligible for conscious .

    With going all Descartes one of the basic problems is- consciousness is defined by those who have it and it's presence is only definitely confirmed subjectively, by the bearer. It's LIKE something to be at some basic level. Is it LIKE something to be a computer? Does the computer have to be programmed in a very "specific" way, then it's LIKE something be be a computer? Why can't it be LIKE something to be an inappropriately or un-programmed computer, say, something chaotic and unpleasant ?

    I don't buy that, (why not Woofy Goofy? Can't say ) but my point is the follow on implications of this kind of (necessary) theorizing get bizarre fast. When things get like this, I take it to mean we lack the even the theoretical constructs and the discoveries of fact needed to form a proper framework. We lack the reifications. It's like Aristotle trying to account for observations that led top Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle. He hasn't had those observations, and if he did a whole slew of prerequisite concepts each of which had their own experimental result as an impetus haven't been created and anyway none of this could have happened prior to technology advancing enough to grind glass into lens and melt ore into steel and so on and so forth.

    We're just not there. Where? I don't know, but I know we're not there.