Slashdot Mirror


Consciousness On-Off Switch Discovered Deep In Brain

An anonymous reader writes "One moment you're conscious, the next you're not. For the first time, researchers have switched off consciousness by electrically stimulating a single brain area. Although only tested in one person, the discovery suggests that a single area – the claustrum – might be integral to combining disparate brain activity into a seamless package of thoughts, sensations and emotions. It takes us a step closer to answering a problem that has confounded scientists and philosophers for millennia – namely how our conscious awareness arises. When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn't respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event. The same thing happened every time the area was stimulated during two days of experiments.

284 comments

  1. Wow! by rotorbudd · · Score: 5, Funny

    That sounds like the experiments that my wife has been doin

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    1. Re:Wow! by BasilBrush · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This technology is already on the market. They call it Google Glass.

    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is she working for Chrome?

    3. Re:Wow! by peragrin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes but your wife isn't using directed electrical signals to shut you down.

      Your wife is using directed Sound signals to shut down you down.

      completely different method. Definitely worth a separate patent.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    4. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look, Apple's sockpuppet is complaining about someone else's hand up its ass.

    5. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is she working for Chrome?

      Rikki's got her eyes already.

      She don't need rotorbudd, Automatic Jack or Bobby Quine no more.

    6. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything (sound taste vision) is electrical impulses on your brain... so yes when your wife yaps...you are being electrocuted.

    7. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My wife uses a frying pan to shut off my consciousness switch

    8. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or has she?

    9. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can it be done "on the internet"? ...I'll get my coat... (and trot my way to the Patent Office)

    10. Re:Wow! by aaronb1138 · · Score: 1

      Dibs on the "on a mobile computing device" patent.

    11. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does she have rounded corners?

    12. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I managed to bring in and break into a restroom a Gorilla then leave it there impacted with TWO HEAD MANEUVERS! Almost the: **Look mom! Without hands!**, bycicle trick! And across the closed door!! And several other effects... And yes, it does look like it acts as a switch, too... -djb

    13. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAA Hey! I managed to bring in and break into a restroom a Gorilla then leave it there impacted with TWO HEAD MANEUVERS! Almost the: **Look mom! Without hands!**, bycicle trick! And across the closed door!! And several other effects... And yes, it does look like it acts as a switch, too... -djb

  2. Brain ZAP! by karnal · · Score: 3, Funny

    Citizen, you will be implanted with this brain massager free of charge. Please do not attempt to remove this device. That is all.

    --
    Karnal
    1. Re:Brain ZAP! by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hee hee! Oh I like that. Press the button again. Wait until he's chewing that spoonful. Now, replace the ice cream with castor oil. Let me press it! Let me press it!

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Brain ZAP! by pushing-robot · · Score: 2

      The problem with dystopian theories like this is bullets are cheap. If you've subjugated the public to the point that you can force expensive brain surgery on them, why bother? Just shoot the people you don't like.

      Besides, there's a huge market for non-lethal weapons; if this works on everyone and incapacitates rapidly, government labs and defense contractors will be tripping over themselves to reproduce this effect through external stimulus. No surgery necessary. Woo...

      ...and, of course, the end result is police and militaries doing whatever the hell they please with the excuse that their phasers were set to stun.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re: Brain ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Dead people leave long tails of hatred. Chronically ill or crazy people leave long tails of sadness and dependency.

    4. Re:Brain ZAP! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Shooting everyone makes a lot of waste to dispose of.

      That's where Soylent Green comes in...

    5. Re:Brain ZAP! by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      On the subject of intrusive government applications, I wonder if it would make prisons more or less humane. No revolts, no issues with control, no angst. Just hook people off of the thing for about three hours a day for feeding and exercising. Can someone sleep while uncounscious like that? (it sounds like a dumb question)

    6. Re:Brain ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to bankrupt Big Brother? With your brain-dead system Big Brother would have to pay for deployment, maintenance, updates... all that does not comes cheap. Big Brother would also have to deal with citizens complaining about it, and it'd be a total mess. Instead, why not the use the same strategy Big Brother used for the tracking and listening devices, where citizens gladly pay for it out of their own pockets?

    7. Re:Brain ZAP! by mpeskett · · Score: 2

      If you spent most of your prison sentence unconscious, it would make any attempt at either punishment or rehabilitation impossible. Would still satisfy the "removing you from society" goal, and would still offer some deterrence (maybe not as much if prison was now closer to a null experience than an actively unpleasant one), but still... seems like defeating a large part of the point of imprisoning people

    8. Re:Brain ZAP! by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Big Brother would also have to deal with citizens com

      Wait... where am I? How did I get in this cell? Nevermind, you can't hear me through this gag. Damn.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    9. Re:Brain ZAP! by ewibble · · Score: 2

      I think rehabilitation part of prison is a joke, you are much more likely to become indoctrinated than rehabilitated. So that leaves punishment, you could consider having X years of your life taken of you as a punishment, it doesn't stop you aging.

      This is a very scary concept, you could imprison anyone, take away there power argue, and still "feel good" about yourself because you didn't kill anyone.

       

    10. Re:Brain ZAP! by manwargi · · Score: 1

      The problem with dystopian theories like this is bullets are cheap. If you've subjugated the public to the point that you can force expensive brain surgery on them, why bother? Just shoot the people you don't like.

      As technology gets better and better, especially at the rapid rate that it grows, exploiting this discovery may not always be that much more expensive.

    11. Re:Brain ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to bankrupt Big Brother? With your brain-dead system Big Brother would have to pay for deployment, maintenance, updates... all that does not comes cheap.

      You seem to imply that in a dystopian society the government would be limited by liquidity, like it is in a capitalist, free society. Cost would only be relevant to the extent that the dystopian government can source the needed resources for its Big Brother establishment, and that would be it. And the limiting factor on that would be how many people have to die before they need to make the mines safer in order to maintain an adequate level of production. The scientists? They'll be taught since children that they're doing the right thing (as a superior class?).

      Just imagine Brave New World, but upside down. Brave New World isn't dystopian in that sense (they're all helping maintaining happiness, even though it's not exactly utopia), but imagine instead a perpetual, 1984-style, war, on the Alpha-Epsilon spectrum. Now _that_ would be quite what the Big Brother society needs :)

    12. Re: Brain ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Chronically ill or crazy people leave long tails of sadness and dependency.

      And Slashdot comments.

    13. Re:Brain ZAP! by everythingistaken · · Score: 1
      To use bullets you have to know you don't like them.

      Brain implants are for the people you like today, but may not like tomorrow.

    14. Re:Brain ZAP! by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The punishment would still be the fact that your are deprived of years of your life. I think it would still suck pretty hard to essentially wake up one morning and find yourself 10 years older.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    15. Re:Brain ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's easier to implant everyone with the remotely controlled devices at a young age, before you know who is a problem or not. Then people are much more likely to behave and you can always zap someone who becomes a problem later on at your leisure.

    16. Re:Brain ZAP! by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      But just imagine a current attack vector today:
        * Remotely infecting a personal computer -- Demonstrated, publicly available
        * Tethered infection of PC to mobile phone -- Demonstrated, publicly available
        * Bluetooth infection of common SOCs on pacemakers -- Not published
        * Pacemaker delivery of ill effects to user -- Demonstrated, details not public

      As more consumer-friendly devices are produced that have a close connection to humans and are marketable, the number of attack vectors increases.

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    17. Re:Brain ZAP! by TWX · · Score: 1

      Typically you either use heavy equipment to dig trenches first, then shoot them at those trenches, or you make them dig their own trenches, then shoot them once they've gone deep enough. Just make sure that they pass the shovel back to you first. After all, shovels are expensive.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    18. Re:Brain ZAP! by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      As another pointed out, rehabilitation is pretty much a joke, (especially for the people stupidly incarcerated for minor drug offenses, then they get exposed to far worse behaviors); which just leaves punishment. And increasingly it seems, activist hippies on the far left don't seem to see much difference between justice/punishment and revenge, (typically in capital punishment cases), so this might be a future option.
      What I mean by that remark: take the death penalty for example; if we execute a murderer, the counterargument goes that it makes us somehow just as bad as the murderer (despite the fact he's not an innocent like his victims were). Yet, if we lock up someone like Ariel Castro in a high security prison, (the guy who imprisoned several teenager girls in his basement and regularly raped them), you don't hear the same argument, though it's essentially the same logic, a case of doing to the perpetrator what he did to his victims, only the rape would come (ostensibly) from other inmates.
      This may be a good compromise.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    19. Re: Brain ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe you do not like them but you get over it. Or maybe it turns out you need them anyway. I hope we have a better set of moderators and editors that slashdot.

    20. Re:Brain ZAP! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      But also be pretty awesome to be "instantly" transported to the future! Woohoo!

    21. Re:Brain ZAP! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Citizen, you will be implanted with this brain massager free of charge. Please do not attempt to remove this device. That is all.

      Experiencing a bit of claustrum phobium, perhaps?

    22. Re:Brain ZAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seems like defeating a large part of the point of imprisoning people

      Um, no. You said it yourself: "Would still satisfy the "removing you from society" goal". Most people don't care if criminals are 'rehabilitated'- they just want them out of sight, and thus out of mind. As far as 'punishment' goes, I'd think losing years of your life, and knowing that other people can 'shut you down' at will is quite a punishment.

    23. Re:Brain ZAP! by tomxor · · Score: 1

      10 years older but also in the physical state equivalent to being in a coma for 10 years... I'd rather stay awake.

  3. but... by meglon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...did it also coincide with the TV being turned on?

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    1. Re:but... by Kryptonut · · Score: 2

      Ah...You've got kids too huh?

    2. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I have a few. whichever ones i successfully snatched off the playground. usually the slowest runners.

    3. Re:but... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have a few. whichever ones i successfully snatched off the playground. usually the slowest runners.

      In case you haven't heard, there's a more fun way of getting kids.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not everyone can afford a jeep and a big net.

    5. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takes too long. And everyone knows you have them, which makes dumping the bodies when you're done that much more difficult.

    6. Re:but... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I have a few. whichever ones i successfully snatched off the playground. usually the slowest runners.

      In case you haven't heard, there's a more fun way of getting kids.

      Well I have my white van. I just need to write "Expensive Candy" on the side... Because lets face it, you cant ransom kids back to poor people.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    7. Re: but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wearing all black and pretending to devote the rest of your life to god is your idea of fun?

    8. Re:but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In case you haven't heard, there's a more fun way of getting kids.

      Ah, it starts off fun, but then there's 9 months of somewhat less fun.

    9. Re:but... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Expensive candy

      Are you trying to pick up 35 year old women?

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  4. an off switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Football fans everywhere are celebrating. How long till they incorporate this into a tv remote? Perhaps we can just reprogram the mute button?

  5. Part of a larger project? by Friar_MJK · · Score: 1

    I see lots of new and exciting things happen in the world of neurology and such. Are these things directly stemming from the Human Brain Project? How do we know what successes have come out of that program?

  6. Executive summary by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    So we have a bunch of male scientists who apparently didn't know about rufies.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Executive summary by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      This one is harder to detect by the prosecution.

    2. Re:Executive summary by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      Can't they detect the hole in her head?

    3. Re:Executive summary by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They're called Forget-me-nows.

    4. Re: Executive summary by anakin876 · · Score: 1

      It's... Arrested Development!

  7. So the claustrum.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..is basically the main() function for humans.

    1. Re:So the claustrum.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seems more reminiscent of an extra way to acquire the conciousness mutex

  8. boobs by clovis · · Score: 1

    so, any idea how long your brain just went off?

  9. This is scary by invictusvoyd · · Score: 2

    But needs deep brain electodes so I guess it wont be easy to pull off .. But with advances in implant devices , zzz (shivers )

    1. Re:This is scary by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to knock people unconscious, there are already less invasive ways of doing it, like general anesthesia. Though it would be interesting to know whether general anesthesia operates by a mechanism related to this one, or is doing something else.

    2. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not worried. There is already an alternative technology which can achieve the same effect even when the participant is unwilling. It's called hitting someone in the head (with a $5 wrench perhaps?) Nothing new here.

    3. Re:This is scary by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Right, but anesthesia or a wrench is not exactly the "kill switch" that this seems to be .

    4. Re:This is scary by Livius · · Score: 4, Funny

      Forget implant devices. With enough mental training, Vulcans can stimulate this part of the humanoid brain just by pinching someone on the neck.

      (Luckily, humanoids have very similar physiology in their nervous systems.)

    5. Re:This is scary by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to knock people unconscious, there are already less invasive ways of doing it, like general anesthesia. Though it would be interesting to know whether general anesthesia operates by a mechanism related to this one, or is doing something else.

      They have no idea... http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/A-Ce/Anesthesia-General.html
      Having had anesthesia many times I think it is worse than most procedures. I feel fuzzy for months after GA. Still it's about the only game in town if someone is going to be carving on a person for medical reasons.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    6. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Uh... You do know that Vulcans aren't real. Right?

    7. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      General anathesia is actually quite dangerous. This could potentially make surgery a lot safer.

    8. Re:This is scary by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      Right, but anesthesia or a wrench is not exactly the "kill switch" that this seems to be .

      More precisely, both are more likely to be actual 'kill switches' than this new method. In both general anaesthesia and the old wrench to the back of the head, there is a non-trivial likelihood that both will end in the recipients death. This new technique is theoretically attempting to target the required part of the brain with far more accuracy and less collateral damage than existing methods of rendering a person unconscious.

      I perceive it more like a virtual machine suspend.

    9. Re:This is scary by FuzzNugget · · Score: 4, Informative

      General anesthetic is actually a lot more crude than most people think. It's essentially a short-term induced coma, that's why they need to jam a breathing tube down your throat and it feels like you just gave Satan a blowjob when they bring you out.

      This sounds like the first baby steps towards developing a drug-free method of dropping patients out of consciousness, maybe even with little to no side effects.

    10. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you sir are no fun at all

    11. Re:This is scary by danomac · · Score: 2

      This sounds like the first baby steps towards developing a drug-free method of dropping patients out of consciousness, maybe even with little to no side effects.

      Well, except for that hole in your head...

    12. Re:This is scary by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Na, just a few little wires.

      Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re: This is scary by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      look into the research from Walter Reed hospital - only part of the brain is asleep. The rest of the brain experiences everything and really screws a lot of people up. Always get general plus spinal.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    14. Re:This is scary by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

      Like I said, baby steps. I didn't say it wasn't a long way off.

    15. Re:This is scary by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 1

      Uh... You do know that Vulcans aren't real. Right?

      Pshhh! That's what *they* want you to believe.

    16. Re:This is scary by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

      Na, just a few little wires.

      Whatcouldpossiblygowrong?

      Whagobblypussywobblygarong.

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    17. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and it feels like you just gave Satan a blowjob when they bring you out

      That sounds hot.

    18. Re:This is scary by gtall · · Score: 1

      Like political ads, they come through the TV and devastate all within ear shot. Think of them as brain shots.

    19. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan
      They're real, they just have to be REALLY accurate if unconsiousness is the desired result.

    20. Re: This is scary by ggrocca · · Score: 1

      Give us sources/links about this. Tried a search but nothing came up. You're implying that the brain experiences pain during surgery but remembers nothing consciously afterwards?

    21. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . and it feels like you just gave Satan a blowjob when they bring you out.

      Curious how you would know what that is like. Are you an expert, or something?

    22. Re:This is scary by swedoc · · Score: 1

      That actually depends. General Anaesthesia can be dangerous under certain circumstances, such as preexisting cardiopulmonary conditions, emergency surgery and others. For young, otherwise healthy individuals GA is actually quite safe. As for the post above, we do have some idea (blocking of GABA channels, stabilisation of membrane potentials) of how it works but not why that actually makes people sleep. This is, however, one article that I will definitely try to read....

    23. Re:This is scary by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this is the mechanism involved in hypnotism.

    24. Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's up to you whether you have a GA or not - presumably that choice is even more [financially} apparent in a third world healthcare system like that of the USA.

  10. All kinds of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neat. Could be used during surgeries instead of anesthesia, or could be weaponized to disable enemy combatants.

    1. Re:All kinds of uses by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Neat. Could be used during surgeries instead of anesthesia, or could be weaponized to disable enemy combatants."

      Nobody would want that. You want to wound (not kill) the enemy soldiers, to bind enemy medics, food, transportation, logistics, field hospitals, pensions and lower morale.

      If you zap them and go away, they will still be there fighting against you. If you take them prisoner, it's YOU who has to provide medics, food, transportation, logistics, field hospitals and get plenty of bad publicity on top.

    2. Re:All kinds of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's usually good publicity to treat prisons well.

    3. Re:All kinds of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would think. But, you have to do everything perfectly. The minute even one slip up happens (eg. some guard pissing on a prisoner's religious text), everything is blown out of proportion and all your good deeds are forgotten.

    4. Re:All kinds of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's usually good publicity to treat prisons well.

      Tell that to the US, ICE and various state prison systems.

    5. Re:All kinds of uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas if you treat them poorly from the beginning, you'll never have any good press to begin with.

    6. Re:All kinds of uses by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Neat. Could be used during surgeries instead of anesthesia, or could be weaponized to disable enemy combatants.

      Sure, just capture them and subject them to brain surgery for the implant, then turn them lose so you can capture them easier next time.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  11. Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by khb · · Score: 2

    If it can be employed in surgery (putting aside the current implant requirement) it would be a surgical boon (might not be so good for anesthesiologists ;>)

    1. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Your head has very few pain receptors in it, neural surgery is pretty much painless after you get into the skull even with no anastasia at all, hence why they can probe the brain while you are full conscious and aware.

      So, no, it isn't going to hurt like blazes.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your head has very few pain receptors in it, neural surgery is pretty much painless after you get into the skull even with no anastasia at all

      Anastasia ?

    3. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      We've been doing all surgery with no Anastasia since 1918

    4. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      :( stupid autocorrect fixing my poor spelling

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      So, no, it isn't going to hurt like blazes.

      He was referring to whatever surgery the patient had been rendrered unconscious for (say, an appendectomy), not surgery to implant a device in the brain

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    6. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by Cito · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points, I haven't laughed that hard in long time.

    7. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      It's a grace situation. Revolting, in fact.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    8. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      grave. Good grief. :)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    9. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that anesthesia doesn't work like a painkiller. It only reduces consciousness. The patient receives painkillers prior to the anesthesia wearing off in order to manage pain after becoming conscious. Since this would only take place of anesthesia, it would still be reasonable to provide painkillers before waking the patient up.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    10. Re:Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Right, but that can probably be pretty well managed with opiate pain killers, for any major procedure it generally has to be anyway. Addiction issues aside they risk of cardiac, respiratory failure, liver and kidney damage etc, is much lower when you are not using as many drugs and in such high dosages to leave someone unconscious.

      There is also the issue that these drugs stress the body during the already stressful surgical procedure.

      I am not a medical professional but if there was a safe way to just turn off someones awareness during a surgery and then limit anesthesia to post operative pain management I suspect safety could be improved a great deal.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  12. Re: Electric roofie gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "a homosexual in a gay bar" so that would be most of the people there?

  13. Anesthetic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be nice if this could work as anesthetic.

    1. Re:Anesthetic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you would only have to weight the risk of an invasive procedure into your brain against the risk of taking anaesthetics. No wait, brain surgery without anaesthetics doesn't sound like a good idea.

    2. Re:Anesthetic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then you would only have to weight the risk of an invasive procedure into your brain against the risk of taking anaesthetics. No wait, brain surgery without anaesthetics doesn't sound like a good idea.

      There are no pain receptors in the brain, so brain surgery is often done with only a local anesthetic for the skull opening procedure.

  14. Better than the Holy Grail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An on/off switch on women!

    1. Re:Better than the Holy Grail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the 'on' switch for?

  15. Consciousness by ThePeices · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis ( the religious explanation for consciousness being external to the brain, and as something that survives death ).

    Of course, the religionists will carp on about how this study is all a big conspiracy with science finding or some other claptrap, but for the rest of us, this could be a major discovery!

    1. Re:Consciousness by Livius · · Score: 1

      The soul is information. It doesn't have a physical location.

    2. Re:Consciousness by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Redundant

      So where's the information stored?

    3. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally! Your sense of superiority will be confirmed!
      Bigots like you are disgusting, regardless of which side you subscribe to.

    4. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um, no it doesn't. It simply proves that consciousness can be externally shut off.

      I'm not going to go into actual religious discussion, save to say that this would have little if any impact on religion at all.

      It might be a good thing to actually learn about what it is you're trying to get rid of before you start commenting on it.

    5. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't say for sure, but they may be claiming that your brain state is, effectively, your soul. At this point, it's more a question of what you think a soul is. If we say it's what makes you you.. then yeah, your brain state is your soul, and if we can ever find a way to copy or simulate it, we'll be able to move/duplicate souls, hence the lack of physical location. It all comes down to information, however it just so happens that we're used to expecting souls to execute in a consistently identifiable machination - hence the association.

      Of course, this is largely pointless discussion of definitions. I think the actually important part is if we can discover adequate evidence that consciousness is a process, not a thing. That there is no special spiritual sauce that makes thought happen, that with adequate knowledge and resources we can replicate this process and create new consciousness.

    6. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soul is the perception of others about us.

    7. Re:Consciousness by Sabriel · · Score: 2

      Why do you believe that consciousness must not emerge from brain activity for there to be a "soul"?
      Why do you believe that there must be a religious explanation for a "soul"?

      Whether or not there actually is a "soul", your provided definition of it doesn't require either of those to be true.

      And it would be no less a major discovery if we found that we did have souls. Or that only some of us did. Or that we only got them at a certain age. Or only under certain conditions. Or that we could create them. Or destroy them.

    8. Re:Consciousness by ichthus · · Score: 1

      New "religionist" theory: the claustrum is the interface of the brain to the soul.

      --
      sig: sauer
    9. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does brain activity have to do with a soul?
      Ask any "believer" if they think a brain-dead person has a soul and they'll deafen you with the "YES!".

      Even after we clone a person and transfer the entirety of their consciousness into the new body - you'll still have people claiming the "soul" died with the old body.

    10. Re:Consciousness by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      It's stored on the 2d holographic plane at the edge? of the universe. Can't you QM types keep up with your own blabbering? Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.

    11. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The soul's location is: your mom.

    12. Re:Consciousness by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Funny

      In quantum fluctuations that happen to reside for some time in part of your brain.

      There is already decent evidence that the 'soul' is a quantum phenomenon, which allows it to reside both in your brain and survive death at the same time and it explains all sorts of other odd 'miracles' that occur as well as things like telepathy and twins seeming to 'feel' their twin even from great distances.

      This satisfies both the religious definition and the OMG GOD DOESN'T EXIST AND I HATE THE IDEA definition.

      Get over it it and accept theres more too it than you understand.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    13. Re:Consciousness by BitZtream · · Score: 0

      Why do you believe that there must be a religious explanation for a "soul"?

      Why do you believe there must not be a religious explanation for a soul?

      Ot goes both ways based on current evidence. There is evidence that the soul is a quantum phenomenon that can not be simply created (for varying definitions of simply) and this possibly explains so many things. I acknowledge its only a possibility and the theory has only a small amount of evidence but you have exactly none to back your statements.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    14. Re:Consciousness by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis ( the religious explanation for consciousness being external to the brain, and as something that survives death ).

      Feel free to believe whatever. Start with an unfounded assertion "there is no soul" and then use unrelated discoveries in a circular logic to justify your belief to yourself.

      Of course, the religionists will carp on about how this study is all a big conspiracy with science finding or some other claptrap, but for the rest of us, this could be a major discovery!

      You don't speak for the rest of us, if indeed, there is a class of people ("religionists") and another class ("the rest of us").

    15. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a falsifiable expression of this "Soul Hypothesis"? If so, it's worth a cite, and we could consider whether the study or its extensions might test it. If not, the question isn't within the realm of science, and a localization of some aspect of consciousness, long known to be somewhere within the brain, won't be a nail in any coffin.

      The vast majority of modern religious claims are unfalsifiable, so expecting J Random Latest Study to have bearing on them is a bit naive. They will probably always remain inherently beyond the reach of scientific evidence. As major scientific results become rarer, we may not see much change in this disjunction of the boundaries of the two systems of thought, relative to the dramatic changes of the last few centuries.

    16. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ot goes both ways based on current evidence. There is evidence that the soul is a quantum phenomenon that can not be simply created (for varying definitions of simply) and this possibly explains so many things. I acknowledge its only a possibility and the theory has only a small amount of evidence but you have exactly none to back your statements.

      Cite please and I'd accept *any* evidence, not just "a small amount."

    17. Re:Consciousness by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis ( the religious explanation for consciousness being external to the brain, and as something that survives death ).

      Of course, the religionists will carp on about how this study is all a big conspiracy with science finding or some other claptrap, but for the rest of us, this could be a major discovery!

      And after you convince them that they were wrong about souls, you can then easily convince them that insectivores, Prosimians, and Marsupials* all have souls/whatever makes us human as well.

      *wiki says: "The claustrum has a phylogenetic background appearing predominantly in insectivores, Prosimians, and Marsupials."

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    18. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    19. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a grand discovery indeed. Too bad there's no chance in hell it will come from the likes of you!

      Somehow, anti-science people like you keep spouting your limiting beliefs without really checking on what real physists think is possible.

      If it were up to people like you, no new invention or discovery would ever surface.

      Happily, the world will go on just fine without you. Maybe you won't be reborn if you disbelieve it? Yay!

    20. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is stored in the Imaginal, Platonic bedrock of reality ie Eternity or as the SCIENTIST J.G. Bennett termed it "Hyparxis"...

    21. Re:Consciousness by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      http://science.slashdot.org/st...

      Its not like it was my idea, but thanks for proving that you're just an arrogant close minded douche.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    22. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Cite please and I'd accept *any* evidence, not just "a small amount."

      100% truth. There is exactly zero evidence of the existence of a "soul."
      What the fuck is "quantum phenomenon" evens supposed to mean?

      BitZtream is just another religionist who does religion wrong - if you can prove it or disprove it, it isn't in the realm of religion. That stuff is just "god of the gaps" bullshit. Religion (versus superstition) is mutually exclusive with empiricism.

    23. Re:Consciousness by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      Dude..... so what you're saying is:

      1) Scientific principle
      2) ....
      3) Magic happens

      Let me know when you've figured out #2 thanks.

    24. Re:Consciousness by turp182 · · Score: 2

      How about this?

      The soul of an individual is composed of the direct and indirect memories people have of one, while living and after death.

      Most people's souls last two to three generations, and then we are just geat-great-grand-father Jason with no stories (I don't even know the names of my family that far back), forgotten other than by name, if lucky.

      Some people's souls live forever, those enshrined in history, such as Abraham Lincoln.

      That's how I see things.

      I'm around to have fun and provide for my family. And after a while I won't be. I really enjoy camping and playing guitar (mostly for myself, which is fine). So I bring my kids camping a lot and play guitar with/for them a lot (my 4 year old daughter requests Follow You Into the Dark, which I love to play). This is the purpose of life.

      I'm not perfect, no one is, but keeping things simple (seek for happiness for you and those around you, the happiness of those around you should be a focus with significant others and children).

      Anyway, the kids are in bed and the guitar is calling. Shameless self promotion, here's a cool video/song of my sunrise drive home on Father's Day this year (I asked for and received a day of solitary camping, it was fantastic):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    25. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Sorry Charlie. The philosopher tells us a soul is the primary act of physical body potentially alive ... that is the soul is NOT a kind-of-thing: the soul is existance.

    26. Re:Consciousness by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      They will probably always remain inherently beyond the reach of scientific evidence.

      Yes. that's because they are 100% made-up. Just as Santa Claus is inherently beyond the reach of scientific evidence.

      You will never find evidence, that is, anything manifesting as objective reality, for a wholly illusory concept. You can, of course, drown yourself in delusion. We appear to be well designed for exactly that exercise, we even practice it most nights during REM sleep. And it's perfectly acceptable, socially speaking. Imagine away.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    27. Re:Consciousness by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      The claustrum has a phylogenetic background appearing predominantly in insectivores, Prosimians, and Marsupials.

      Hmmm. A hint as to where to look for consciousness most similar to humans?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    28. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was with you on this statement "Feel free to believe whatever." Quite a reasonable followup to a questionable post. However, your rebuttal fell apart very quickly in the next sentence when using the word unfounded - "Start with an unfounded assertion..."

      Arguing ones case with an equally inflammatory tone is a waste of words. This is why... we can't all just get along.

    29. Re:Consciousness by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. A hint as to where to look for consciousness most similar to humans?

      Nope! Only humans have Human(TM) Consciousness. You wouldn't want to weaken the rights we give ourselves by pointing to creatures that have similar traits, now would you?

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    30. Re:Consciousness by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Why do you believe that there must be a religious explanation for a "soul"?

      Why do you believe there must not be a religious explanation for a soul?

      I don't believe either way. It's not a binary choice, you (should) know.

      Ot goes both ways based on current evidence. There is evidence that the soul is a quantum phenomenon that can not be simply created (for varying definitions of simply) and this possibly explains so many things.

      Actual evidence? I was under the impression there were only theories, and if I believe anything, it's that scientific evidence proving the existence (or non-existence) of souls should be front-page news. Okay, maybe page two or three, depending on what else happened that day. But major news nonetheless.

      I acknowledge its only a possibility and the theory has only a small amount of evidence but you have exactly none to back your statements.

      Which statements would those be? I made two. The first was that the previous poster had made a claim that relied on an unsupported assumption; you demanding I provide evidence for someone else's unsubstantiated claim being wrong is a tu quoque fallacy. The second was that it would be no less a major discovery if we found scientific proof that we did have souls (than if we found we didn't); I took it to be self-evident, but feel free to ask a journalist (or priest) their view.

    31. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agent Smith is a bit pissed that we can now suspend the link to the Matrix. It creates all kinds of paperwork for him when he has to describe what's wrong with the "batteries in the pods". Other people may call him St. Peter, but it's the same guy :)

    32. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually *read* what you link to, or do you just google for headlines that sound remotely like they confirm your assertions?

    33. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can [...] drown yourself in delusion. We appear to be well designed for exactly that exercise [...] Imagine away.

      Clearly the Universe was designed by APK.

    34. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis ( the religious explanation for consciousness being external to the brain, and as something that survives death ).

      Not at all. I'm not religious and I can immediately see the glaring flaw in your argument.

      That location could just be where the external (dark matter) consciousness interfaces with the brain and/or where the final brain "signal" is combined before interface.

    35. Re:Consciousness by jeIIomizer · · Score: 1

      He's anti-science for expecting someone to prove their extraordinary claims?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    36. Re:Consciousness by richlv · · Score: 1

      right. because logic and facts made all religions obsolete long time ago.

      --
      Rich
    37. Re:Consciousness by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis ( the religious explanation for consciousness being external to the brain, and as something that survives death ).

      So, the devil's advocate argument would be that finding a center of consciousness in the brain is no different from discovering that the brain and not the heart is the center of consciousness for the body. Back when that was figured out it didn't end the practice of religion.

      We already know that if you're shot in the head you stop acting like a conscious human being. We already have people in vegetative states lying on hospital beds who can do little more than breathe. So, it is already completely evident that consciousness depends on physical structures in the brain operating correctly.

      I doubt that religion will go away even after artificial beings that don't contain (human) brains at all are walking around taking our jobs away...

    38. Re:Consciousness by StormReaver · · Score: 0

      Wow, if we discover the exact region and mechanism for how consciousness emerges from brain activity, then this, in my mind, is the final nail in the coffin of the Soul Hypothesis

      Heh, you haven't actually had to talk to the religious/nutty, apparently. They will defend their absurdly ignorant misinterpretation of the universe with a violent ferver not seen anywhere else. They will simply wait until one of their brainwashers/preachers/ministers/popes/whatever invents the most ridiculously ludicrous explanation for how this actually ties into their fairy in the sky's grand plan for humanity; and bullshit, ignore, and dogmatically shout down anyone who tries to use anything even remotely approaching logic.

      No, this discovery will be completely lost on 95% of the world's massively idiotic population.

    39. Re:Consciousness by Wootery · · Score: 1

      What? If I live alone in the desert, I have no soul?

    40. Re:Consciousness by Salgat · · Score: 2

      I wasn't aware of the soul as being defined by that, at least for Christians/Jews the Bible barely makes any mention of its properties. Considering the "soul" is metaphysical, the explanation can be simply explained away as a supernatural copy of our state of mind that is restored after death in a new supernatural body. Who knows though, I sure as hell don't know anything about souls and to discuss it is pure guessing.

    41. Re:Consciousness by xdor · · Score: 1

      Just because the radio can be switched off does not prove the absence of a radio transmission.

    42. Re:Consciousness by gtall · · Score: 1

      The "soul" is not "consciousness". It is a much more abstract notion.

    43. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the religionists will carp on about how this study is all a big conspiracy with science finding or some other claptrap, but for the rest of us, this could be a major discovery!

      Just like you atheists will hail it like your own religious banner as "proof" that the soul does not exist. Looking at the facts, we have always known there is an on/off switch to consciousness. Have someone clock you in the back of the head with a baseball bat and you will certainly engage the "off" switch for a while.

      Feel free to explain further why finding an on/off switch for the brain has anything to do with the existence (or non-existance) of the human soul? Would that be similar to claiming the on/off switch on your house breaker box proves there is no external power company?

    44. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. "Soul." What a bunch of hooey. Wanna know what the Bible says about it? It says that you don't have one. The word "soul" is translated from a word meaning "breath" and is simply a representation of the fact that you're alive.

      - Genesis 2:7 says that "man became a living soul."
      - Psalm 146:4 says that when someone dies, "in that very day his thoughts perish."
      - Ecclesiastes 9:5 says that "the dead know nothing at all."
      - And just a special bonus for all the religionists that believe a "soul" cannot die, Ezekiel 18:4: "The soul who sins is the one who will die."

      So "religionists" had better start brushing up on their own material before they start dipping toes into scientific matters.

    45. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religion isn't mutually exclusive with empiricism. Christianity has a command against putting god to the test, but it is not all religions.

    46. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can falsify the claims of Santa Claus (eg coming down the chimnies of 'good' children) so not the same the as the (christian) god which you can't do that with.

      Also plenty of people think they have spoken to god, you just don't believe them. Therefore is even some scientific evidence (evidence in personal testimony) in support of god, you just don't believe it.

    47. Re:Consciousness by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't.

      Even if we reject religion, and, say, go for a "World is actually The Matrix" hypothesis (which, similarly, has human bodies controlled by observers external to the observed world", the best we can genuinely say about this region of the brain is that activating it disables "whatever controls the brain" (internal or external.) Unless the observers have an seperate memory (and why would they?), everything is consistent with that observation link being severed. The observers (be they souls or Matrix hook-ups) are no longer able to modify the brain's memory, to move the body, or in any other way interact with it. When that part of the brain is allowed to operate again, they can do so.

      If we at least assume memory is local, which it has to be, there's no incompatability. If memory is not local, it's still possible there's no incompatability because the lack of communications between observer and avatar will result in no memory data being written.

      On the other hand, the good news is that as you haven't proven the non-existence of God, you will be unable to prove that black is white, and thus will not be killed on the next Zebra crossing.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    48. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the cloud...

    49. Re:Consciousness by TWX · · Score: 1

      I hear that Costco is having a sale on rolls of tin foil...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    50. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 'religonists' won't care because its not relevant.

      the soul is in no way dependent of consciousness; see any religious family which contains someone with a brain injury effecting cognition.

    51. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends, what color is your hair?

    52. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence.

    53. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an atheist appealing to a lack of objective reality in order to disprove god.

      you realize there's no 'objective' frame of reference without a god right?

    54. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All evidence is subjective as we have no other method of experience. Ultimately this makes all scientific evidence 'personal anecdotes' as there isn't any other type of evidence available to us.

    55. Re:Consciousness by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Two problems.

      1) The story you link to refers to a claim of the explanation for conciousness being quantume mechanics, not the soul

      2) The link is also simply an example of Betteridges law. The headline asks a question (that the two are linked), and the body gives the answer no.

      but thanks for proving that you're just an arrogant close minded douche.

      My mind may look closed to you, but that's because yours is apparently constructed from swiss cheese and Cheetos.

    56. Re:Consciousness by amxcoder · · Score: 0
      In defense of the Original Poster:

      I'm tired of people who may believe (or don't dismiss the existence of) in God, getting attacked from others by being called "anti-science". How ignorant are you? Believing in God has nothing to do with being a scientists. I'm assuming that your main argument is that because a lot of Christians don't buy into MACRO evolution doesn't mean they don't buy into "science" in general? You sir, have no concept of history, or science in general if that is what you use to attack with.

      Want Proof? Maybe you've heard of some of these people? Guess what, they are all famous scientists, and they also all believed in a God!

      Nicholas Copernicus
      Sir Francis Bacon
      Robert Boyle
      Johannes Kepler
      Galileo Galilei
      Blaise Pascal
      Isaac Newton
      Robert Boyle
      Michael Faraday
      Charles Babbage
      William Thomson Kelvin
      Wernher von Braun
      and the list goes on and on...

      Even Albert Einstein admitted that he leaned toward a belief of a Created universe, and wanted to study science so he knew how God thought. He is quoted as also saying "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

      So ignorant people such as yourself need to actual study history, and realize that it wasn't long ago when most of the sciences were advanced by people who either partially or fully believed in God. And quit using the ad hominem attack on Christians that if you believe in God, you are "anti-science", because it is BS.

      Maybe you would also be surprised to find out that of all Nobel Prizes handed out over the years in science topics, that Christians (specifically) have been honored the most. Of all the Nobel prizes, Christians have received 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, and 62% in Medicine. (I could not find Math statistics, but that is also high).

      It wasn't long ago, that some our worlds greatest scientists had the same thing as you, except about Athiests. Here are some famous Nobel Physicists own words:

      Heisenberg wrote: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”
      Schrödinger wrote: “The grave error in a technically directed cultural drive is that it sees its highest goal in the possibility of achieving an alteration of Nature. It hopes to set itself in the place of God, so that it may force upon the divine will some petty conventions of its dust-born mind.”
      Millikan wrote: “To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.”
      William Phillips wrote: “I believe in God. In fact, I believe in a personal God who acts in and interacts with the creation. I believe that the observations about the orderliness of the physical universe, and the apparently exceptional fine-tuning of the conditions of the universe for the development of life suggest that an intelligent Creator is responsible. I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.”
      Guglielmo Marconi wrote: “The more I work with the powers of Nature, the more I feel God’s benevolence to man; the closer I am to the great truth that everything is dependent on the Eternal Creator and Sustainer; the more I feel that the so-called ‘science’ I am occupied with is nothing but an expression of the Supreme Will, which aims at bringing people closer to each other in order to help them better understand and improve themselves.”

      I would challenge you to name one area of science where so called 'religious anti-science' people haven't made MAJOR contributions.

    57. Re:Consciousness by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I know that the evidence supporting the existence of souls is about as compelling as the evidence for mermaids. Maybe slightly lower actually, since people have actually claimed to see mermaids.

    58. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, the religionists will carp on about how this study is all a big conspiracy with science finding or some other claptrap, but for the rest of us, this could be a major discovery!

      I'm a practicing Christian and I don't see this as a conspiracy (big, or otherwise). In fact, I find it fascinating and hope the research continues. I also don't see this as necessarily putting a nail in the coffin of a "Soul Hypothesis", but that could be just my take on it. YMMV.

    59. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah yeah yeah. Hitler brought about revolutionary military, medical, logistical, and engineering technologies into common use as well but you don't hear us singing his praises. I'm sorry. Science has no place for your gods and those that believe in them are much less of a scientist than they could be. That book you guys appear to love so much is nothing more than a set of blinders to keep you on your stupid narrow path. Religious scientists are no less blinded.

    60. Re:Consciousness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Costco. I love you.

    61. Re:Consciousness by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      Not a big surprise coming from an ignorant anonymous coward such as yourself. At least I had the guts to post using my username knowing I could get down-voted posting something such as this here on Slashdot, instead you name call, and make no rational arguments what so-ever, and do it all behind the veil of anonymity. Congrats, you wouldn't want to make yourself look like a fool using your own username.

      Your attack doesn't even make sense, as Hitler didn't study in any science field or advance any of the fields himself, so nice try, trying to compare Hitler to actual scientists that have actually advanced major areas of science and medicine that we still use today as a basis for further research.

      If you want to dismiss the information I put forward so easily, then surely you won't mind not using, and tossing out all the breakthroughs, inventions, discoveries, and theories that have been put forth in all of history by these "blinded" scientists who believed in God. You hold the belief these scientists were blinded by their faith, however I don't see AC in the history books, or getting Nobel's or advancing any scientific field. What contributions have you made, since you obviously don't have these "blinders" on to hinder your thoughts? I'm guessing you haven't contributed to anything.

  16. Zombies by thewickedductaper · · Score: 0

    One step closer to the zombie apocalypse.

  17. Does the robot have it? by Sarius64 · · Score: 1

    I particularly liked the manner in which the writer jumped from something as complex as the human brain developing consciousness to wondering if robots have the same function. He should be lobotomized.

  18. Interesting, but N=1 and... by dhj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Anil Seth, who studies consciousness at the University of Sussex, UK, warns that we have to be cautious when interpreting behaviour from a single case study. The woman was missing part of her hippocampus, which was removed to treat her epilepsy, so she doesn't represent a "normal" brain, he says.

    Normally a scientist will not ethically be able to put deep brain electrodes in a person, but this was likely part of a larger experiment related to the hippocampus surgery. It will be interesting to see if similar cases present similar behaviors and more interesting if the same thing happens in someone with a full hippocampus.

    1. Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The original article seems to be conspicuously missing. Here is the pubmed reference (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24967698), but the link there is broken too and even browsing through the journal's archive doesn't bring up any reference to the article. Hopefully that gets fixed very soon.
      Also, back when I was PhD student in neuroscience Crick and Koch's idea that the claustrum was the seat of consciousness was one of my class's favorite jokes- if it turns out they were actually right I'm gonna be so f-ing mad.

    2. Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find the whole think kind of surprising, since it is known that the whole brain doesn't go to sleep at the same time. Sleepwalking happens when part of it isn't asleep at all.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this isn't sleep. This is more like watching Fox News.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    4. Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full article is available here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525505014002017

    5. Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... by devent · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the link is broken?
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... works fine by me, here is the Abstract:

      [...]Stimulation of the claustral electrode reproducibly resulted in a complete arrest of volitional behavior, unresponsiveness, and amnesia without negative motor symptoms or mere aphasia. The disruption of consciousness did not outlast the stimulation and occurred without any epileptiform discharges.[...]

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    6. Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can download the article from my university.

      Nothing strange about the link.

    7. Re:Interesting, but N=1 and... by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      The abstract is still up, but not only is the link to the full text no longer working, the paper is not on the list for the issue of the Epilepsy & Behavior that the citation PubMed gives for it says it ought to be in. The full text would make it clear exactly what sort of consciousness is being altered here.

      This seems to be a problem with Epilepsy & Behavior, in that a lot of what they're listed as having in the current issue of the journal on PubMed they don't list as in it on their own site. This does not strike me as a desirable thing in a scientific journal. (Yes, I did take the time to check through PubMed to see if this was a unique-to-this-paper issue or something else, and they've got a few articles that would be of...greater interest to me if I was more confident of their editorial practices.)

  19. Very interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone find the fact that she was not respondant to auditory and visual stimuli, but still breathed(even though it slowed down)?

    it's as if the survival instinct overrode the unconsciousness

    1. Re:Very interesting by quintesse · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know, should we find it *what* exactly, you didn't really state that. Surprising? No, it's not, that's indeed the survival instinct taking over. In general your breathing is not conscious, although we have conscious control unlike for example your heart. But in general it's not possible for example to hold your breath until you are dead. There are some ways to hold your breath until you pass out, but the moment you do you start breathing again. (All this AFAIK)

    2. Re:Very interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone find the fact that she was not respondant to auditory and visual stimuli, but still breathed(even though it slowed down)?

      it's as if the survival instinct overrode the unconsciousness

      Umm..cf. the Autonomic Nervous System vs. the Somatic Nervous System. Duh.

    3. Re:Very interesting by rhazz · · Score: 2

      In general your breathing is not conscious

      It is now, jerk!

    4. Re:Very interesting by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Also, don't forget to blink. You wouldn't want your eyes to dry up!

  20. Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by digitalhermit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have been experimenting with this technique since the early 80s. It is possible to stimulate the claustrum via pressure along the sternocleidomastoid. By pinching this area it causes sympathetic nerve activity that can effective render someone unconscious. My colleague has perfected the technique to the point that he uses it at parties. Quite eerie, actually.

    Peace. Stay healthy and have a long life..

    1. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by paiute · · Score: 2, Funny

      Logical.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Logical.

      Didn't the Vulcan's perfect this?

    3. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vulcan neck pinch?

    4. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fascinating.

    5. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by blincoln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you sure that's the mechanism at work? "pressure along the sternocleidomastoid" sounds suspiciously like "put someone in a triangle choke/'sleeper hold'", which will cause them to pass out because it cuts off the blood supply to their brain.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    6. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is a blood pressure "sensor" there, if you overload it the heart reduces pressure to the point where the person passes out almost instantly. Take a tap/press at the correct spot. The triangle choke relies on squeezing the juglar to prevent blood getting to the brain. They have similar effects but do it in different ways.

      Neither is what the article suggests, as you implied.

    7. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 1

      I believe the action is question is more proximal than the medial influence you infer.

    8. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by Jimbob+The+Mighty · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

    9. Re:Can be stimulated via sternocleidomastoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have been experimenting with this technique since the early 80s. It is possible to stimulate the claustrum via pressure along the sternocleidomastoid. By pinching this area it causes sympathetic nerve activity that can effective render someone unconscious.

      Ha! The party trick is that he got you to believe it was something special. The arteries that feed you brain are right there. I doesn't take too much pressure to stop the blood flow and knock someone out. Nice trick making it seem like some kind of ninja move.

  21. Very promising ... vs Re:This is scary by NoseBag · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but the surgery is (usually) gonna hurt like blazes the instant the signal is stopped!

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  22. Does the robot have it? by NoseBag · · Score: 1

    Ever heard of "Pause"? LOL

    --
    Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
  23. So does this mean... by Guru80 · · Score: 1

    Neuralizers! Men in Black is the new Star Trek.

    1. Re:So does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, patent and weaponize this research. - said the old US military chief.

  24. I've been wrong this whole time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that if you're stimulating a woman's claustrum and she falls asleep, you're doing it wrong.

    1. Re:I've been wrong this whole time by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's the Zzz spot, not the G spot.

  25. Off switch for consciousness is well known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It begins with the words "Cardholder's agreement".

  26. It nearly always does by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

    it's as if the survival instinct overrode the unconsciousness

    Whenever survival is at stake, consciousness is among the first wasters of valuable resources (energy) to be turned off, or at least substantially modified.. This is a principle, AFAIK.

  27. What is consciousness? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    They zapped a part of her brain that had the effect of stopping conscious thought. I suppose that meets the definition, but it sounds more like they overwhelmed her normal brain function rather than shut it off.

    1. Re:What is consciousness? by countach · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting interpretation of what happened.

      I was also wondering why they said she was unconscious but not asleep. What is the technical difference that allows them to make this distinction?

    2. Re:What is consciousness? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      eyes open, unresponsive to stimuli (can't be woken up), no memory of entering the state

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:What is consciousness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's anything like my partner, you can overwhelm her brain just by watching a TV show after 7.30pm.

  28. Not good.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they have a way to keep clones unconscious until they harvest organs from them.

    OTHO, I wonder if it could be used during surgery in place of drugs?

  29. Next innovation ? by slash0r · · Score: 1

    Direct access to unconsciousness brain part ?

    What is next ?
    - flashing new ideas/learning skills like Neo.... or brainwashing/propaganda...
    - or cheap and instant medical anesthesia, nonlethal cop weapons, alternative to rape drugs...
    - clearing out what is in your consciousness and not in your long-term memory yet, like in Men-in-Black...

    Choose one. Ok, all.

    1. Re:Next innovation ? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      I would love to have selective memory wiping capabilities. I could wipe my memories of watching Sword Art Online and watch it again for the first time.

  30. Fortunately, the switch it in the brain... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Imagine what could happen if it were conveniently located on your back!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Fortunately, the switch it in the brain... by slash0r · · Score: 1

      Yess, Hinduists figured out that before : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Fortunately, the switch it in the brain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had an off switch, would you tell anybody about it?

  31. Let's not jump to conclusions. by jaeztheangel · · Score: 3, Informative
    The Claustrum as an area of the brain has been well established as an area of orchestration of various sensory subsystems. It has been studied for over two centuries[1].

    These studies clearly demonstrate that the Cl is richly innervated with a wide and diverse array of neurotransmitters and neuromodulators. Lesion, stimulation and recording experiments demonstrate that the functional and physiologic capacity of the Cl is quite robust. A recurring theme of claustral function appears to be its involvement in sensorimotor integration. This may be expected of the Cl, given the degree of heterotopic, heterosensory convergence and its interconnectivity with the key subcortical nuclei and sensory cortical areas. The Cl remains a poorly understood and under investigated nucleus.

    It makes sense that a major loss of function is associated with interrupting the Claustrum - but there are several nuclii in the brain - the Hippocampus being one. Claiming it is the 'one true center of consciousness' in the brain doesn't account for the countless studies which reveal just how complex the operation of our neural networks actually are, and may be premature.

    References

    1. [1]The claustrum: a historical review of its anatomy, physiology, cytochemistry and functional significance. Edelstein LR1, Denaro FJ.

    1. Re:Let's not jump to conclusions. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      And since there seem to be lots of "off" switches, this is really just adding to the list. (Unless stimulating it can actually bring someone out of a coma?)

  32. IITC? by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

    So, how well does this finding fit with the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

  33. holy shit fuck.. doctors at it again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is like MKULTRA experiments. the damage done to people from mind control experiments is long-term. this women is going to wake up one day and realize she couldn't even remember if she forgot anything. she might suddenly die. she might lose hair or teeth.

    maybe she gets schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. this is common with mind control subjects. like the 10 year olds abducted by the military, raped, drugged, electroshocked, kept in cages, psychically drived, and trained as prostitutes and spy assassins... then suddenly kicked out of the program and suffering extreme injury for the rest of their lives.

    I fear for the womens life because what these doctors are doing to her are fucking batshit crazy.

    This actually happened to me as a male at age 23.. read my site.

    http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/

  34. Scifi becomes reality by penguinoid · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I've seen devices like this in science fiction shows. Though absent a very high quality auto-targetting, I can't see the real one having any use against an unwilling subject. I wonder if it also causes short-term memory loss?

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  35. "If you had an off switch..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If You Had An Off Switch, Doctor, Would You Not Keep It A Secret?"
    "I guess I would."

    -- Data and Dr. Crusher, "Datalore", stardate 41242.4

    *I* darn sure would!!

  36. Re: Electric roofie gun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it gay if you only like black dick?

    No, strictly speaking that just makes you a misinformed size queen.

  37. Well... by dale.furno · · Score: 1

    Sounds like all the more reason to keep wearing my Tin Foil Hat!

  38. Non Story by dreamchaser · · Score: 2

    This is a non-story. One subject? Really? Let's seen an actual study with multiple subjects and some deeper analysis into what might be going on. As it stands this is a non-story.

    1. Re:Non Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a non-story. One subject? Really? Let's seen an actual study with multiple subjects and some deeper analysis into what might be going on. As it stands this is a non-story.

      Putting electrodes in peoples brains has some ethical implications, that's why this is limited to 1 person who has received brain surgery before.

    2. Re:Non Story by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      This is a non-story. One subject? Really? Let's seen an actual study with multiple subjects and some deeper analysis into what might be going on. As it stands this is a non-story.

      Odds are that multiple subjects will only happen if multiple people with neurological trauma in the same area can be found. This is sort of a story, but more in the 'we can justify looking for people with this specific trauma' sense.

      Unless you're actually willing to volunteer, in which case I suppose somebody might be able to locate a neurosurgeon both competent enough to inflict precisely-targeted brain damage & sufficiently lacking in ethics to do so on somebody who volunteered.

  39. Zapp Brannigan? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    or should we say, Zap Brainnigan?

  40. Where is the paper ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess, results of yet another publicly funded research have been stolen by those parasites at Elsevier...

  41. The police already use this technology by mtthwbrnd · · Score: 1

    "When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. "

    Tazers!

  42. Fainting, conscious experience and consciousness by mynamestolen · · Score: 1

    Having seen someone faint at the sight of blood (the lights went out instantaneously and they hit the floor like a sack of potatoes) this woman's experience doesn't quite match what I saw. The woman seemed still to have muscle tone to remain sitting upright. So this suspension of some sort of executive control/awareness/conscious experience needs a different name.

    The NewScientist article said "To confirm that they were affecting the woman's consciousness rather than just her ability to speak or move, the team asked her to repeat the word "house" or snap her fingers before the stimulation began. If the stimulation was disrupting a brain region responsible for movement or language she would have stopped moving or talking almost immediately. Instead, she gradually spoke more quietly or moved less and less until she drifted into unconsciousness."

    So, she wasn't having conscious experience but wasn't unsconscious. The NS article also talked about being awake but unconscious, which doesn't fit the sack of potatoes unconsciousness.

    --
    work in progress
  43. Enough by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn't respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event.

    Hey GOP, leave Lois Lerner alone already!

  44. an important unanswered question... by moogaloonie · · Score: 2

    Where does the soul end and where does the funk begin?

  45. Which is turned off ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Consciousness or memory of consciousness?

  46. Neuroplastic Heaven by aaronb1138 · · Score: 2

    Girl: Did I fall asleep?

    Doctor: For a little while.

    Girl: Shall I go now.

    Doctor: If you like.

  47. I found other areas by russotto · · Score: 1

    Turns out that a lot of people, if you hit them on the point of their chin they lose consciousness. Most will lose consciousness with a simple tap to the temple. Seems like an easier off-switch to me.

  48. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've finally found a way to "turn off" our wives...

    1. Re:Finally! by iamacat · · Score: 2

      It's called marriage.

  49. I experienced this switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got hit by a motorcycle riding my bmx bike when I was a kid. Completely blacked out before impact. Turns out I had no injuries at all, not a single scratch, the motorcycle actually hit my front tire. I was out cold for over 5 minutes and awoke on the side of the road having no idea where I was or why I was there. A guy behind the motorcycle stopped and pulled me off the road. Guy on the motorcycle kept going. I wouldn't have even known I got hit if the other driver would not have told me, and the fact my rim was only half round.

  50. Reminds me of Scopolamine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reminds me of what the locals from Colombia refer to as the devils breath. Pretty scary.

  51. I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so they figured out a way to poke someone's brain and render them unconscious?

    I bet I can do the same with any processor, just poke it somewhere with a metal piece and make it stop working.

    Am I missing the point?

    1. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part where they carefully controlled what bit they poked and she recovered afterwards. Go poking a processor with bits of metal and thats less likely to be the case.

  52. So by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    It turns out that self-awareness is an illusion of a couple of smallish blobs in your brain, without which you would be no smarter than the average computer? Seems like it ought not to be terribly difficult to make a computer think it's self aware too, then.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out that self-awareness is an illusion of a couple of smallish blobs in your brain, without which you would be no smarter than the average computer? Seems like it ought not to be terribly difficult to make a computer think it's self aware too, then.

      If you think so then it is likely your perception of self-awareness is the illusion, not ours.

    2. Re:So by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It turns out that fusion energy is just the produce of a collision of two nuclei at very high speeds, without which you would have only a fraction of energy available from fission? Seems like it out not to be terribly difficult to make a nuclear power plant that uses fusion then.

  53. Effectively impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only evidence that remains is whatever isn't cleaned up [or any resulting youngins]

  54. Useful for research by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    Perhaps they could use this information to try an investigation of how anesthetics work with a narrower scope, giving them a chance for a better understanding of what goes on with those drugs and the ability to make future anesthesia less dangerous.

  55. Should be great for the operating table by JasonGoatcher · · Score: 0

    Won't have to guess at dosage anymore, just zap the brain until you want them to wake up. Of course, there needs to be redundancy so they don't wake up screaming.

  56. Yes, but which area of claustrum... by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Is responsible for creating consciousness INSIDE claustrum?

  57. Long Distance Flying by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forget the comedy - this might be an invention that could make long distance flying bearable! Turn off your brain after take off and back on for landing with no memory of many hours of sitting in a tin can in between.

    1. Re:Long Distance Flying by StripedCow · · Score: 1

      You can already do that using anesthetics.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    2. Re:Long Distance Flying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get The Ludes!!!!

    3. Re:Long Distance Flying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The blood clot prevention will then be left for the air lines. Perhaps placing the unconscious passenger to a massaging and electrically stimulating storage hexagon for that optimal packing density?

    4. Re:Long Distance Flying by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I wonder if it could be used to help insomniacs. Sleep isn't exactly unconsciousness but still...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Long Distance Flying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And... why am I so sticky all over?

    6. Re:Long Distance Flying by TWX · · Score: 1

      You can already do that using anesthetics.

      They'll even provide them on the flight. It's called the Beverage Service.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Long Distance Flying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that would work for Jonah Hill and Will Smith movies too.

    8. Re:Long Distance Flying by afidel · · Score: 1

      Doubtful, there are all sorts of housekeeping steps the brain needs to perform while you sleep, like moving short term memories into long term memory. Failure to perform those steps eventually leads to insanity.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:Long Distance Flying by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately anesthetics take quite a while to wear off during which you may feel even worse than if you had been awake for the entire time. This would also make them dangerous in case of emergencies.

    10. Re:Long Distance Flying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do people who don't believe in technology replacing the man have to do with this thread?

    11. Re:Long Distance Flying by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      And Micheal Bay movies!

    12. Re:Long Distance Flying by iMySti · · Score: 1

      Oh, you mean when the robots shut us down for daily backups. I for one welcome our data-conscious overlords.

  58. Reviving comatose people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There have been a lot of people with head injuries who have fallen into coma - would electric zaps into the claustrum regions within their brain revive them ?

    1. Re:Reviving comatose people by Wootery · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with some idiot AC making accusations?

    2. Re:Reviving comatose people by TWX · · Score: 1

      It was the highest post on the site without a reply, so he was assured of being seen without having to scroll down, that's what it has to do with an AC making accusations.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Reviving comatose people by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I don't know...let's give it a try.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    4. Re:Reviving comatose people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it is a very effective strategy. Hell you posted here yourself.

    5. Re:Reviving comatose people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can I get in on this?

  59. Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they find out that people have different lengths and sizes of the 'claustrum' and find a correlation between attention span or concentration or something AND then maybe 50 years later they find out that none of that really mattered.

  60. Scariest. Story. Ever. on Slashdot by fygment · · Score: 1

    Think ( while you can ) at just how much this could be abused.

    Thought: sleep learning/hypnosis. So can we put someone in an unconscious state, put suggestions in their head wake them and voila, brand new religious zealot?

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
  61. UPDATE: Project now transferred by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Yes, expect this project to be transferred to military control. Who will devise a mechanism to broadcast this signal en masse. The government's wet dream, the ability to shut down instantly all humans at will.

    No more combatants, no more riots, just turn them off...

  62. Obligatory Car Analogy by bityz · · Score: 1
    No need to devise the obligatory car analogy, the article comes with its own!:

    "I would liken it to a car," he says. "A car on the road has many parts that facilitate its movement - the gas, the transmission, the engine - but there's only one spot where you turn the key and it all switches on and works together. So while consciousness is a complicated process created via many structures and networks - we may have found the key."

  63. First Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phasers on stun.

  64. Re:Scariest. Story. Ever. on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't find abuse that requires someone to secretly perform brain surgery on me very scary.

  65. The end of crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if everyone had one of these installed, police would be able to remotely 'deactivate' anyone who was in the process of committing a crime. couple it with a bit of personal information for identification and this could even be used to remotely deactivate someone over a 911 call. tech glasses could give you the persons name + id and you could inform the dispatcher of this and have the threat handled in a matter of seconds instead of minutes. could also make dealing with mental illness much easier.

  66. Old news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doctors have known this since the early 20th. There are several "prerequisites" to consciousness. One of them is a functioning RAS (Reticular Activating System). They have drugs to make you "unconscious" by acting on this part of the nervous system. I suppose on the Internet, things can be discovered over and over again.

  67. Will it affect epilepsy diagnosis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am curious if this insight will modify the manner in which some types of epilepsy are diagnosed.

    There are different types of epileptic seizures and not all of them cause a person to lose consciousness. Partial seizures only affect a section of the brain at a time, while generalized seizures affect the entire brain. And from what I understand, some medications prevent different types of seizures better than others. If a person can completely lose consciousness by stimulating this small area of the brain, I wonder if some people diagnosed with a type of generalized epilepsy are actually having partial seizures around the claustrum. If so, and if tests could confirm this, then some people may receive more effective medication.

  68. Re:Scariest. Story. Ever. on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been living in that world for the past thirty years or so, from what I've seen. It's hard to recognize it, because, well... they're using the technology on us all the time.

    You don't need wires to stimulate deep brain regions. I read a similar story about cognition where the doctors mentioned in an off-hand way that they used a type of microwave beam to non-invasively stimulate a region of the brain to turn on and off eyesight. (wtf???) -Like such a feat was no biggie, completely beside the point. They were all excited about some minor observation about memory and attention or something. The huge significance of the fact that they were using a piece of industrially available medical equipment to temporarily blind people with the flick of a switch appeared to be entirely lost on them.

    On a subtler level, you can direct emotional states and cognitive acuity at both key or prolonged moments with microwave technology. Virtually everybody walks around with a cell phone attached to their bodies.

    Of course, those most plugged in are least willing or able to recognize this.

  69. Lucid Dreaming Implications by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

    This is pretty cool, and has some implications on inducing lucid dreams. I can't wait until this becomes a more refined process, would be awesome to lucid dream at will. Certainly something I'd pay good money for.

  70. Re:Fainting, conscious experience and consciousnes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    without reading too much it sounds more and more like they found a way to put a human to sleep by inhibiting cross-talk in the brain; for example... it looks to be more similar to suffocation than the utility of the lungs themselves

  71. Surgery by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to see if this could be used as a replacement for surgical anesthesia. If so, no more adverse side effects, or the attendant risks that general anesthesia comes with.