Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

At Science Daily: Fiddler crab eye view inspires researchers to develop novel artificial vision

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Artificial vision systems find a wide range of applications, including self-driving cars, object detection, crop monitoring, and smart cameras. Such vision is often inspired by the vision of biological organisms. For instance, human and insect vision have inspired terrestrial artificial vision, while fish eyes have led to aquatic artificial vision. While the progress is remarkable, current artificial visions suffer from some limitations: they are not suitable for imaging both land and underwater environments, and are limited to a hemispherical (180°) field-of-view (FOV).

Fiddler crabs can look all around, without the need to move their eyes. https://biology.anu.edu.au

To overcome these issues, a group of researchers from Korea and USA, including Professor Young Min Song from Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology in Korea, have now designed a novel artificial vision system with an omnidirectional imaging ability, which can work in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. Their study was made available online on 12 July 2022 and published in Nature Electronics on 11 July 2022.

“Research in bio-inspired vision often results in a novel development that did not exist before. This, in turn, enables a deeper understanding of nature and ensure that the developed imaging device is both structurally and functionally effective,” says Prof. Song, explaining his motivation behind the study.

The inspiration for the system came from the fiddler crab (Uca arcuata), a semiterrestrial crab species with amphibious imaging ability and a 360° FOV. These remarkable features result from the ellipsoidal eye stalk of the fiddler crab’s compound eyes, enabling panoramic imaging, and flat corneas with a graded refractive index profile, allowing for amphibious imaging.

Accordingly, the researchers developed a vision system consisting of an array of flat micro-lenses with a graded refractive index profile that was integrated into a flexible comb-shaped silicon photodiode array and then mounted onto a spherical structure. The graded refractive index and the flat surface of the micro-lens were optimized to offset the defocusing effects due to changes in the external environment. Put simply, light rays traveling in different mediums (corresponding to different refractive indices) were made to focus at the same spot.

To test the capabilities of their system, the team performed optical simulations and imaging demonstrations in air and water. Amphibious imaging was performed by immersing the device halfway in water. To their delight, the images produced by the system were clear and free of distortions. The team further showed that the system had a panoramic visual field, 300o horizontally and 160o vertically, in both air and water. Additionally, the spherical mount was only 2 cm in diameter, making the system compact and portable.

Science Daily

It’s worth highlighting this quote: “These remarkable features result from the ellipsoidal eye stalk of the fiddler crab’s compound eyes, enabling panoramic imaging, and flat corneas with a graded refractive index profile, allowing for amphibious imaging.” Does this sound like intelligent design or the result of unguided, random evolutionary processes?

Comments
Alan Fox@99
while pseudoscientists here can continue to make unsupported nonsense assertions
You seem either to be reading-impaired, or were so closed-mindedly certain of your materialist position that you just didn't bother to peruse this thread and read the detailed expositions posted by me in #33 and by Caspian in #21. Now, in the absence from you of anything but unsupported dismissal (argument by assertion), it looks like there will be a wait (maybe forever) for your plausible detailed debunking of the Wilder Penfield findings.doubter
August 6, 2022
August
08
Aug
6
06
2022
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
The question is whether the human brain is limited to being a biological computer or whether it's also a receiver or connector to a mind that's not generated by nerve impulses. Scientific researchers are most certainly looking for what causes consciousness. For example: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/memory-medic/201910/nerve-impulses-the-key-understanding-the-brain This is where neurosurgeons come into the picture. If all thought originates from nerves, then the work in better understanding epilepsy by stimulating nerves and neurons should predictably result in stimulating aspects of self awareness and various thoughts, which it hasn't. However, brain stimulation is being used to treat certain medical conditions and pain: https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/21088-deep-brain-stimulation And new tools also show promise of greater specificity for stimulating neurons: https://hsci.harvard.edu/news/new-tool-allows-researchers-stimulate-neurons-and-observe-their-signals-real-time There's even a scientific journal dedicated to the subject: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/brain-stimulation%20 Such resources might even tempt some commentors to do some reading before posting their usual vacuous trollbot responses. ET @100,
All this alleged “scientific community” has to do to refute ID is to substantiate their own claims that blind and mindless processes produced life and its diversity!
Well said and raises the question of how mindless processes are able to give rise to mind and, especially, why they would do so. In other words, if humans are simply meat robots controlled by stimulus-response at the level of paramecium, insects, or trollbots, why does self consciousness need to exist, much less moral judgment, the appreciation of beauty and music, honor, kindness, honesty, philosophy, love, respect, and so on? -QQuerius
August 6, 2022
August
08
Aug
6
06
2022
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
“Every tub must stand on its own bottom.”
True. Because had Alan read the comments what JVL said was refuted. And what Alan just said was also refuted. And Alan shouldn't talk because he doesn't even have a tub. Again, for the learning impaired: Intelligently Designer or not sweeps the field clear of choices. And science mandates that all design inferences eliminate nature, ie blind and mindless processes, before considering intelligent design.ET
August 6, 2022
August
08
Aug
6
06
2022
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Earth to Alan Fox- Come in Alan- All this alleged "scientific community" has to do to refute ID is to substantiate their own claims that blind and mindless processes produced life and its diversity! They are the ones making unsupported nonsense assertions. YOU only make unsupported nonsense assertions.ET
August 6, 2022
August
08
Aug
6
06
2022
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
We are still waiting for a plausible detailed explanation of how neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s over 1000 brain operations for epilepsy didn’t actually conclusively show that the human Self while in body is a complex entity, part physically created by brain neuron processing, but also part immaterial spirit or soul.
Classic burden shift and typical at Uncommon Descent. Why does the scientific community need to do all the work of refuting every pseudoscientific claim while pseudoscientists here can continue to make unsupported nonsense assertions? (Rhetorical question. ;) )Alan Fox
August 6, 2022
August
08
Aug
6
06
2022
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
JVL
No, the disproval of one hypothesis does not establish another. There might be a third explanation not covered by either of the previous two.
KF knows this. "Every tub must stand on its own bottom." Problem is nobody bothers to read his comments.Alan Fox
August 6, 2022
August
08
Aug
6
06
2022
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
JVL@58 We are still waiting for a plausible detailed explanation of how neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield's over 1000 brain operations for epilepsy didn't actually conclusively show that the human Self while in body is a complex entity, part physically created by brain neuron processing, but also part immaterial spirit or soul. This clearly proven cumulatively by hundreds of thousands of brain stimulations to locate epilepsy points, stimulations that absolutely never evoked involuntary abstract thoughts or any other higher mind phenomena. A very large body of empirical evidence derived from neurosurgery that convinced Penfield (who started as a materialist) that the truth is some sort of interactional dualism, two sorts of substances and realms of reality, material and spiritual.doubter
August 6, 2022
August
08
Aug
6
06
2022
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
JVL@84
Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded that Reynolds’ ability to perceive events during her surgery was the result of “anesthesia awareness”.
Woerlee's skeptical scientismistic attempt to dismiss Reynolds' veridical NDE was published in the IANDs journal, and was promptly and thoroughly debunked in two responses, one by Stuart Hameroff, and another by Chris Carter. Carter's was quite a few pages long and very detailed. Just the beginning was the debunking of Woerlee's claim that it was anesthesia awareness and that Reynolds could actually consciously hear during the procedure. Aside from the strong evidence that she simply wasn't conscious during most of the procedure, there was the unfortunate (to Woerlee) facts of how securely and thoroughly Reynolds' ear canals were blocked from outside sounds. Regardless of her level of consciousness, there simply was much too little sound physically getting through. From Chris Carter's rejoinder to Woerlee:
"In 2007 - in response to skeptical objections that Reynolds may have simply overheard the surgeon's remarks - Sabom in his communication added more detail to his account: "Steven Cordova, Neuroscience Manager at the Barrow Neurological Institute, who was the intraoperative technologist responsible for inserting small molded speakers into Spetzler' patients in the early 1990's when Reynolds' surgery was performed, told me that after these speakers were molded into each external auditory canal, they were further affixed with "mounds of tape and gauze to seal securely the ear piece into the ear canal." This "tape and gauze" would "cover the whole ear pinnae" making it extremely unlikely that Reynolds could have physically overheard operating room conversation one hour and twenty minutes after anesthesia had been induced.""
doubter
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
JVL:
In which case?
Stonehenge.
No, the disproval of one hypothesis does not establish another.
Daft. ID claims that blind and mindless are incapable. So, by demonstrating they are capable, ID is refuted. Science 101.
It’s not good if you can’t show that there were any around! And your reason for thinking there were any around is because you think something was designed but you can’t even say when design was implemented!! So when do think there were designers around?
The evidence says at least one was around. And there are by far more important questions to answer.
Over and over and over again it’s been pointed out that your and Dr Behe’s interpretation of that paper is incorrect. You don’t even understand the math well enough to evaluate the probabilistic arguments made by Dr Behe so how do you know who is correct?
1- Irrelevant. 2- Wrong. 3- Non-sequitur
Also, you did not provided the areas of historical studies you claimed ID researchers were researching.
Origins, duh. Look, JVL- all you can do is lie and bluff. If you and yours had the actual evidence, then ID would have been a non-starter. But you can only lie and bluff. You don't even have a mechanism that has been shown capable of producing the diversity of life and yours is the mechanistic position!ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT
@JVL why do you think our physics contradicts any of the fore mentioned things about the mind? Not one of those things you mentioned are contradictory to QM for reasons like quantum entanglement, particle wave duality, quantum fields, etc. Plus we don’t have a full understanding of the standard model let alone can claim Newtonian Physics are 100% So with our limited understanding of existence why is that our physics is a problem for mind brain duality?AaronS1978
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
@91 There are many events in our universe that require very specific conditions for them to take place I think you’re assuming way to much simplicity in something that could be a very difficult and a very rare event to begin with And currently it seems to be that NDEs are less complicated than the emergence of life, which is just one good example of requiring very specific conditions for it to occur or you would get entirely new species from any electrified puddle of water. And my personal take on it would be that you would not have NDEs at all, if God demands your souls presence, I would think he would not let it linger even for a brief momentAaronS1978
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Whatever JVL, I have much better things to do than play stupid rhetorical word games with someone who lacks the intellectual honesty to admit that his own brain is obviously the product of vastly superior Intelligent Design.
At Mind Matters News: Why Some Life Forms Are Smarter Than Others Is Still A Mystery - July 17, 2022 Excerpt: Michel Hofman, who describes the human brain as “one of the most complex and efficient structures in the animated universe,” Denton, noting that a cubic millimetre of human brain features sixty times as many synaptic connections as a 747 jetliner has components, goes on to say: “Many authors have concluded that it may be very nearly the most intelligent/ advanced biological brain possible. That is, its information-processing capacity may be close to the maximum of any brain built on biological principles, made of neurons, axons, synapses, dendrites, etc., and nourished by glial cells and provided with oxygen via circulation.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-mind-matters-news-why-some-life-forms-are-smarter-than-others-is-still-a-mystery/ The Human Brain Is 'Beyond Belief' by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. * - 2017 Excerpt: The human brain,, is an engineering marvel that evokes comments from researchers like “beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief”1 and “a world we had never imagined.”2,,, Perfect Optimization The scientists found that at multiple hierarchical levels in the whole brain, nerve cell clusters (ganglion), and even at the individual cell level, the positioning of neural units achieved a goal that human engineers strive for but find difficult to achieve—the perfect minimizing of connection costs among all the system’s components.,,, Vast Computational Power Researchers discovered that a single synapse is like a computer’s microprocessor containing both memory-storage and information-processing features.,,, Just one synapse alone can contain about 1,000 molecular-scale microprocessor units acting in a quantum computing environment. An average healthy human brain contains some 200 billion nerve cells connected to one another through hundreds of trillions of synapses. To put this in perspective, one of the researchers revealed that the study’s results showed a single human brain has more information processing units than all the computers, routers, and Internet connections on Earth.1,,, Phenomenal Processing Speed the processing speed of the brain had been greatly underrated. In a new research study, scientists found the brain is 10 times more active than previously believed.6,7,,, The large number of dendritic spikes also means the brain has more than 100 times the computational capabilities than was previously believed.,,, Petabyte-Level Memory Capacity Our new measurements of the brain’s memory capacity increase conservative estimates by a factor of 10 to at least a petabyte, in the same ballpark as the World Wide Web.9,,, Optimal Energy Efficiency Stanford scientist who is helping develop computer brains for robots calculated that a computer processor functioning with the computational capacity of the human brain would require at least 10 megawatts to operate properly. This is comparable to the output of a small hydroelectric power plant. As amazing as it may seem, the human brain requires only about 10 watts to function.11 ,,, Multidimensional Processing It is as if the brain reacts to a stimulus by building then razing a tower of multi-dimensional blocks, starting with rods (1D), then planks (2D), then cubes (3D), and then more complex geometries with 4D, 5D, etc. The progression of activity through the brain resembles a multi-dimensional sandcastle that materializes out of the sand and then disintegrates.13 He also said: We found a world that we had never imagined. There are tens of millions of these objects even in a small speck of the brain, up through seven dimensions. In some networks, we even found structures with up to eleven dimensions.13,,, Biophoton Brain Communication Neurons contain many light-sensitive molecules such as porphyrin rings, flavinic, pyridinic rings, lipid chromophores, and aromatic amino acids. Even the mitochondria machines that produce energy inside cells contain several different light-responsive molecules called chromophores. This research suggests that light channeled by filamentous cellular structures called microtubules plays an important role in helping to coordinate activities in different regions of the brain.,,, https://www.icr.org/article/10186 The human brain, marvel of design Excerpt: The average human brain has about 100 billion neurons (or nerve cells) and many more neuroglia (or glial cells) which serve to support and protect the neurons (although see the end of this page for more information on glial cells). Each neuron may be connected to up to 10,000 other neurons, passing signals to each other via as many as 1,000 trillion synaptic connections, equivalent by some estimates to a computer with a 1 trillion bit per second processor.,,, The brain has more switches than all the computers and routers and Internet connections on Earth. 8 That is not all the brains on Earth, nor all human brains, but merely a single brain of a single human. With over 100 billion nerve cells, or neurons, and a quadrillion synapses, or connections, it is, as one researcher described, “truly awesome.”Researchers have found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, or as one evolutionist admitted, almost to the point of being “beyond belief.”,,, https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1377-the-human-brain-marvel-of-design
bornagain77
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Oh, here's another question: if the mind and brain are separate then why aren't there a lot more events of people having out-of-body experiences where they can perceive and experience things when they are outside of their body? Why does it only happen when they are near death? Why can't the mind always and often perceive and detect things outside of and away from the body/brain? And, why is it that out-of-body experiences happen only very near the physical body if the mind is completely separate?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Asuaber: Well, evidently, as long as JVL thinks “millions of years” is a scientific explanation and not a fantasyland, we’re going to get the same regurgitated manure. How about you take the laws and rules you think God set up and apply those to the way you think the universe works. Like with ESP or PSI or NDEs or mind-brain dualism. Or is It that all those God given rules get thrown out the window as soon as things get complicated? I'm just asking you to explain the way you think things work based on the laws you think God created. But you won't. Or can't. And, so far, God hasn't given me any insight.JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL claims that ID is a “science stopper’. No, I said it's perceived as a science stopper. Anyway, you clearly have decided to avoid even attempting to answer any of my questions about how the (God given) laws of physics can be applied to your mind-brain duality hypothesis. Why don't you just admit you can't or won't answer the questions? So, God set it all up and people like Newton figured out some of the rules but you can't say how those rules apply. That's it isn't it?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Well, evidently, as long as JVL thinks "millions of years" is a scientific explanation and not a fantasyland, we're going to get the same regurgitated manure. Andrewasauber
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
JVL claims that ID is a "science stopper'. Which is ironic coming from a man promoting an anti-theory
"Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action.? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!" - Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel laureate – Physics - A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)
As to going beyond design detection,
The Surprising Relevance of Engineering in Biology https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9i2vFEa6rE Scientist Brian Miller explains the intriguing story of how biology is beginning to adopt more design-based models in its research. Although it's true that many biologists still offer lip service to unguided evolution, engineers and biologists are actually working together to change the way we view how life developed. Stuart Burgess: Biology’s Designs Tutor Our Top Engineers https://www.discovery.org/podcast/stuart-burgess-biologys-designs-tutor-our-top-engineers/ Intelligent Design 3.0 by Stephen C. Meyer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwBaD8-00w Intelligent Design 3.0, an effort not to make the scientific case for ID directly but, instead, to use design insights to open up avenues for new scientific discoveries.
bornagain77
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
ET: No tools for quarrying the stones. No tools for transporting them. In which case? You are a hypocrite for saying a non-human Intelligent Designer is not any good. It's not good if you can't show that there were any around! And your reason for thinking there were any around is because you think something was designed but you can't even say when design was implemented!! So when do think there were designers around? And to refute that all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for it. No, the disproval of one hypothesis does not establish another. There might be a third explanation not covered by either of the previous two. I know that it hasn’t. The reason why the paper “Waiting for TWO Mutations” was written is because there isn’t any such evidence. Over and over and over again it's been pointed out that your and Dr Behe's interpretation of that paper is incorrect. You don't even understand the math well enough to evaluate the probabilistic arguments made by Dr Behe so how do you know who is correct? When was the design implemented? 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon. Right, so you don't know. Noted. Also, you did not provided the areas of historical studies you claimed ID researchers were researching. Also noted. Until ID supporters produce some science that is not just based on disproving unguided evolution or interpreting work done by others it will continue to be labelled, fairly or unfairly, as a science stopper. It's not a lack of money, it's not because you haven't had time to 'study the design'. No one wants to go past design detection. Or, even worse, they can't go beyond design detection. Whatever, producing some ID-positive scientific work would be good.JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
JVL:
Also we have seen other things they made at the same time, we have their tools, we know they were in the area, with the Egyptians we have some of their writings.
No tools for quarrying the stones. No tools for transporting them.
You pretending that asking who built Stonehenge implies “which person” is just a dodge to promote your narrative. Humans built Stonehenge, humans built the pyramids, humans built the Mayan and Aztec pyramids and temples.
Fine. You are a hypocrite for saying a non-human Intelligent Designer is not any good.
Your only ‘evidence’ is some complicated things you think were designed.
Wrong again.
You make a circular argument: these things were designed and we know there was a non-human intelligence around ’cause these things were designed.
Not. Even. Close. We say things are intelligently designed based on our KNOWLEDGE of cause-and-effect relationships.
If we agree to not use the object under question as evidence you haven’t got any.
Are you retarded? And to refute that all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that blind and mindless processes can account for it.
Which I think has been done.
I know that it hasn't. The reason why the paper "Waiting for TWO Mutations" was written is because there isn't any such evidence. Yet nature can’t even produce Stonehenge, even though it produces stones in abundance.
Non-sequitur.
In what way? Be specific. When was the design implemented? 3:30 on a Thursday afternoon.ET
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Doubter: The Pam Reynolds case. You profess to be familiar with the NDE literature and data, but apparently are not aware of this very well-known prominent and important veridical NDE. Curious. I have followed the Skeptiko podcast for over a decade and they have discussed many NDE cases and research. I did not recall this particular case but that does not mean that I am ignorant of the general claims and situation. As far as this particular case is concerned . . . as with any such events I'd be very interested in an accurate timeline of when certain medications were given and when certain procedures occurred. Also, I don't find it completely out of the question that someone could hear some things even if they had tight-fitting earphones in. Frequently, during such procedures, there are times when the patient is partially conscious albeit at a low level. There are even times when someone under a strong general anaesthetic is aware of what is happening. I don't find any of the patient reporting to be beyond the scope of someone who was not completely 'out'; it doesn't sound like they observed anything that they couldn't have perceived from their position. So, if I have to pick between some physics-defying perceptual event and one that, while improbable, agrees with what we know of physics and chemistry and brain activity I'll take the solution which doesn't imply the overthrow of the known laws of physics (which apparently were dictated by God). Oh, by the way, there are dissenting views of the event:
Critics say that the amount of time which Reynolds was "flatlined" is generally misrepresented and suggest that her NDE occurred while under general anaesthesia when the brain was still active, hours before Reynolds underwent hypothermic cardiac arrest. Anesthesiologist Gerald Woerlee analyzed the case, and concluded that Reynolds' ability to perceive events during her surgery was the result of "anesthesia awareness". According to the psychologist Chris French: Woerlee, an anesthesiologist with many years of clinical experience, has considered this case in detail and remains unconvinced of the need for a paranormal explanation... [He] draws attention to the fact that Reynolds could only give a report of her experience some time after she recovered from the anesthetic as she was still intubated when she regained consciousness. This would provide some opportunity for her to associate and elaborate upon the sensations she had experienced during the operation with her existing knowledge and expectations. The fact that she described the small pneumatic saw used in the operation also does not impress Woerlee. As he points out, the saw sounds like and, to some extent, looks like the pneumatic drills used by dentists.
Also: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079612305500256?via%3DihubJVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Relatd: You are suddenly concerned with Newton and God? What brought this on? I'm not 'concerned'; I just think that Newton is an example of someone who had a deep and abiding faith but who asked questions and looked for answers. Scientists, as was shown to you, have no idea how the brain/mind can think in the present or about the past or the future. Or even creatively. Okay. But it's okay asking questions and trying to find answers! And that's true for those of faith and those without. You just insist on asking questions to support your worldview as opposed to looking at the answers previously provided to you. Just a minute . . . I've been told over and over again that God created the laws that run the universe. So . . . I'm asking how a God-view jibes with the laws you say God made. And you think I'm trying to support my view? I would think you would think that applying the laws of physics and chemistry to questions of PSI or ESP or NDEs or mind-brain duality would be supporting your view!! You don’t understand God or how God works because you don’t want to know. God creates from nothing. He uses no pre-existing substance. He creates from nothing. No one has an excuse for believing otherwise. But he invented the laws I'm trying to apply to your view of how the universe works . . . yes? And that's a problem?JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
JVL@58
I will look at the (Pam Reynolds) case if you can provide details. I’d rather not guess until I’ve familiarised myself with the particulars.
The Pam Reynolds case. You profess to be familiar with the NDE literature and data, but apparently are not aware of this very well-known prominent and important veridical NDE. Curious. The following is a very abbreviated summary excerpt from Rivas, Titus, The Self Does Not Die: Verified Paranormal Phenomena from Near-Death Experiences (pp. 95-123). International Association for Near-Death Studies. Kindle Edition. This is only a very abbreviated summary. The details of this case are long and voluminous in an extended literature, and can only be roughly summarized here due to limitations of space.
During his Atlanta NDE study, cardiologist Michael Sabom (1998) came across the case of a 35-year-old American singer-songwriter, Pamela (Pam) Reynolds (1956–2010). In 1991, Reynolds had been diagnosed with a large saccular aneurysm — a sac-like bulge in the wall of a brain artery that is prone to rupture — at the base of her skull under her brain stem. If such an aneurysm does rupture, it leads to hemorrhaging that can affect the adjacent brain stem and result in death. The size and location of the aneurysm made it impossible to remove the bulge by means of a routine neurological intervention. For this reason, Reynolds was sent to neurosurgeon Robert Spetzler at the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, Arizona. Dr. Spetzler is a pioneer of the method known as hypothermic cardiac arrest, nicknamed the standstill operation. In such an operation, someone’s body temperature is dropped to between 59° and 63° F (15° to 17° C). Both heart rate and breathing are stopped, and the blood is drained from the head. In this way, normal physiological processes that could cause serious complications are avoided during operations on the brain, the major arteries, or the heart. From a biological viewpoint, the patient comes very close to death in this procedure, with the understanding that he or she will be roused back to life at the end of the operation. Once Reynolds was brought into the operating room, she received anesthetics, pain killers, and muscle relaxants, after which she was completely unconscious. Reynolds was hooked up to a machine that took over her breathing. Earbuds equipped with two little loudspeakers were inserted into her ears. The loudspeakers emitted 11 clicks per second at 95–100 decibels in one ear and loud white noise in the other; periodically, the clicking sound was switched to the opposite ear to avoid hearing damage. The earbuds were molded to completely fill her ear canals and then covered with gauze to keep them in place so that all other sound was blocked out. An anesthetist monitored her closely, including keeping track of her EEG to measure her brain activity and, particularly, possible reactions of her brain to the clicking sounds. Such reactions can indicate that the brain is inadvertently still active, even if there is an otherwise flat EEG. Her eyes were taped shut, her head was clamped in place, and the rest of her body was covered with sterile drapes. After this, neurosurgeon Spetzler began the actual operation on the aneurysm. At the same time, cardiac surgeon Camilla Mican monitored a bypass machine connected to Reynolds’s groin artery, a standard technique that is part of the total standstill operation. Her blood was pumped out of her body, cooled, and pumped back in. In this way, the entire body was cooled down. The heart function was taken over by the machine as well. Finally, the bypass machine was turned off and the aneurysm was removed without any complications. Then the machine was turned back on and used to pump blood back into the body and raise body temperature back to normal. Normal heart function was restored, tubes that had been inserted were removed, and the wounds were stitched up. Early in Spetzler’s part of the procedure, just before the cooling down part began, he used a surgical saw to open Reynolds’s skull. She later reported that this was when her NDE began. While Spetzler operated the saw, Reynolds perceived a sound that she identified as a musical note (a high natural D). She felt that she popped out of her body and floated above the operating table. The further she left her body behind, the clearer the tone became. Then she observed the doctors working on her body. Her vantage point was just over Spetzler’s shoulder. She saw him holding a tool that looked like an electric toothbrush. The thing made a sound that Reynolds found unpleasant, and she observed that it had a groove on top where it appeared to go into the handle. She thought the tool looked like a drill. It had interchangeable blades that resembled bits, and these bits were kept in a small case nearby that looked to her like a socket wrench case. She heard the sound of the saw grow louder. She did not see exactly where the saw bit in, but she did hear something being sawed into. Reynolds then heard someone say that the arteries in her right groin were too small, and somebody else answered that they should try the other side (her left groin). She thought the fuss around her lower body was strange because this was a brain operation, and she did not understand the need for an incision in the groin to connect her to the bypass machine in preparation to cool, then later warm, her blood. Sabom tried to determine to what extent Reynolds’s description of the beginning stage of the operation corresponded with the facts. He contacted Spetzler and was able to see the surgeon’s report of the operation. The correspondences were so major that even Spetzler himself could not offer any normal explanation for them. For instance, Reynolds accurately presented the exchange about her arteries. This perception was physically impossible because the exchange, even if she had been normally conscious, would at the very least have been distorted due to the ear buds. Pamela Reynolds' Neurosurgeon Karl A. Greene, at the time a newly minted doctor who was involved in the operation, meanwhile also confirmed that Reynolds’s experiences were inexplicable. His confirmation came during a conversation with journalist and author Judy Bachrach (2014). She wrote: The doctor found it impossible to believe what he had just heard. The surgical saw did in fact look like an electric toothbrush; it emitted a high-pitched sound, and some of its blades were kept in what looked like a toolbox. One of Pam’s femoral arteries had been too small to connect to the heart-lung machine, and there had been some discussion about that before a decision was made to try the other femoral artery. .................................................. In one e-mail to Rivas, surgeon Spetzler recounted that Reynolds’s description was remarkably accurate. To Smit, he added, “She was under EEG burst suppression [a clear sign that the brain is not active but in a state of deep unconsciousness], which is incompatible with anesthetic awareness” (R. Spetzler, personal communication, 2013; see Chapter 11, Note 2). Dr. Greene wrote Rivas the following about this matter: Mrs. Reynolds’ NDE-consciousness during the first phase involving the bone saw, electrophysiological activity in the central nervous system was more likely than not to have been so profoundly suppressed that Mrs. Reynolds would not have had such a well-formed conscious experience of the use of a bone saw and its sequelae. (K. Greene, personal communication, July 7, 2015). .................................................. Reynolds (personal communication, August 2003) wrote Rivas that her accurate observations cannot be explained by normal foreknowledge. Prior to the operation, she had received only a summary explanation of what was going to be done. Considering it was a new procedure, she could not have had access beforehand to written information about the surgical procedures that would be performed — and there was no information online, as the Internet was in its infancy. Reynolds thought it was totally ridiculous that some people assumed that she would have gotten a tour of the operating room and been shown the medical instruments before the operation—which she felt would have been so scary, she might never have gone through with the operation. She also emphasized to Rivas that she could not after the fact have reconstructed the brief exchange that took place during the early phase of the operation, because she had not known prior to surgery that an incision would be made in her groin, and for 2 days following surgery, she was still unaware of this part of the procedure because the pain in her head was so great that she did not feel the pain in her groin. Reynolds added that before the operation, she had never read a book or article about NDEs and that she had been skeptical about the nature of her own NDE until Sabom investigated further. She thought that NDEs were caused by disruption to the cerebral processes and adjusted her opinion only when Sabom revealed his research results.
doubter
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Seversky@14 Just to keep track of this discussion. Typically, it has become clear that once again, in response to a "put up or shut up" challenge, you will never actually engage with the reasonable request for some sort of plausible detailed account. You simply continue to gloss over without any elaboration in convincing detail the barriers to such a Darwinistic transformation (such as the fiddler crab eye evolution featured in the Op.) that I have pointed out. And of course there are many more. As I pointed out, these barriers to gradualistic RM+NS evolution of such a complex biological system start with the wait time problem and the irreducible complexity (very wide scattering of “islands of functionality” in the fitness landscape) problem. Still waiting for a substantive response, but I certainly won't hold my breath.doubter
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
JVL at 79, You are suddenly concerned with Newton and God? What brought this on? Yes, ID is science. Scientists, as was shown to you, have no idea how the brain/mind can think in the present or about the past or the future. Or even creatively. I haven't told you to stop asking questions. You just insist on asking questions to support your worldview as opposed to looking at the answers previously provided to you. You don't understand God or how God works because you don't want to know. God creates from nothing. He uses no pre-existing substance. He creates from nothing. No one has an excuse for believing otherwise. Romans 1:20 "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."relatd
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Relatd: You just want to ignore the obvious, don’t you? What separates you and others who refuse to believe in a deity is your belief – that is the correct word – that science is all. That what you can see or hold in your hand is all. And that’s all. Hang on. Newton (just an example) was a person of great and deep faith and he asked a lot of questions about how the universe worked and he experimented and he did a lot of mathematical work in an attempt to codify what he considered God's creation. So what's wrong with asking questions about how something works? You say you want science, right? ID is science right? I'd like to know what the ID answer is for certain questions. Like how do the mind and brain communicate if they're separate? How is the mind sustained? Where does the energy come from? Are you saying asking such questions is wrong? Why? Your fear that the world of living things might become a world that was designed by an intelligence? Nope, I don't feat that if ID can answer obvious questions and come up with testable explanations. Since space aliens are right out due to lack of evidence, we are left with God. Talk about a change! Instead of Richard Dawkins worship – Living things aren’t actually designed – we might get people believing in God. Again, what is wrong with asking questions of how the God explanation works? I've been told over and over that the reason there are rules of physics is because the universe was intelligently designed. But when I ask how those rules apply to mind-body dualism you tell me to stop asking questions!! If the laws of nature were designed by God then there should be an explanation using the rules God derived of things like PSI or NDEs or mind-body dualism.JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
JVL at 76, You just want to ignore the obvious, don't you? What separates you and others who refuse to believe in a deity is your belief - that is the correct word - that science is all. That what you can see or hold in your hand is all. And that's all. Intelligent Design is the correct answer. The only answer. It looks at the data, records the problems - as opposed to rubber stamping everything with Evolution Did It - and the problems have been presented here. But no, it's not good enough. You say you want science, right? So where does worldview come from? Your fear that the world of living things might become a world that was designed by an intelligence? That kids will be taught this? Based on your previous reference to politics and policy. Yes, the Intelligent Design Science textbook is on its way. Since space aliens are right out due to lack of evidence, we are left with God. Talk about a change! Instead of Richard Dawkins worship - Living things aren't actually designed - we might get people believing in God. Atheists prefer evolution as their explanation for their worldview.relatd
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Seversky @67,
I don’t understand the need to “worship” anything.
That’s because you’re not grasping the astonishing creativity, brilliance, and power of the Creator despite the overwhelming evidence in DNA code, biochemical cycles, and complex ecosystems including your own body. Instead, you unscientifically ascribe everything--including your mind--to mindless chance.
I find the concept of an egotistical deity that needs to be worshipped inconsistent with qualities attributed to the Christian God by the faithful.
Obviously. The conclusion then is that the Creator is brilliant, but not egotistical. You’re simply projecting pathetic human egotism on the Creator of space-time, mass-energy, life, and conscious minds.
If God knows who and where I am, He is welcome to visit in person so that we can talk. Is there any reason why that shouldn’t happen?
Great to hear! You’ll need to make a conscious and sincere effort to invite the presence of the Creator into your life. This will have a profound impact on you, as it has for many of us, including me. -QQuerius
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
Relatd: With due respect, you aren’t Newton. And to quote the great philosopher, Mick Jagger: “You can’t always get what you want.” God will send you a message. I await with anticipation. I'll make sure the answering machine is on. New! (Not really) JVL Irritant. For online use only. Available only by prescription. Not for topical use. See warning label. What is wrong with asking questions about how someone's world view would actually work? And what is wrong with calling someone on incorrectly representing known and well-established science? I guess God will let me know since you're not into answering questions.JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
JVL at 73, "promote your narrative" New! (Not really) JVL Irritant. For online use only. Available only by prescription. Not for topical use. See warning label. Warning: Can cause vertigo, altered mental states and occasional periods of weightlessness.relatd
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: You made a blatantly false empirical claim. When called on it you punt. Thus, I don’t care what you are more interested in. You can’t even get to square one as far as science is concerned! You do this all the time. To avoid addressing questions you attack the other person. Shall we get back to whether or not you can answer my questions? After that I will do my best to answer your questions. You say that many physicists would disagree that reductive materialism is falsified by Big Bang Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics. Again, I don’t care what other physicists may believe. I only care what the empirical evidence itself is indicating. It is called empirical science. And on that score, materialism is dead. Continuing to not even attempt to address my questions . . . I did not ‘try’ to turn your ‘communication channel’ comment back on you. I DID. The existence of communication channels falsifies your materialistic worldview. Period. What communication channels? I said they hadn't been discovered. What are you thinking of? Between the brain and mind obviously. The rest of you post is just as scientifically pointless. I trust unbiased readers to clearly see that you got nothing but science-free rhetoric. Again, avoiding my questions. Since you're clearly not even going to try and answer my questions why not be man-enough and mature-enough to say so clearly.JVL
August 4, 2022
August
08
Aug
4
04
2022
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply