Skip to main content

Pet Scans and fMRIs

It seems that one or both of these is not a picture, but is rather a statistical composite.... which one?That's something I need to look into.

Meanwhile, here's a quote from Wikipedia, the Wild West of learning, about pet scans:
The system detects pairs of gamma rays emitted indirectly by a positron-emitting radionuclide (tracer), which is introduced into the body on a biologically active molecule. Images of tracer concentration in 3-dimensional space within the body are then reconstructed by computer analysis. In modern scanners, this reconstruction is often accomplished with the aid of a CT X-ray scanperformed on the patient during the same session, in the same machine.If the biologically active molecule chosen for PET is FDG, an analogue of glucose, the concentrations of tracer imaged then give tissue metabolic activity, in terms of regional glucose uptake. Although use of this tracer results in the most common type of PET scan, other tracer molecules are used in PET to image the tissue concentration of many other types of molecules of interest
So pet scans indicate glucose consumption. Not STRICTLY speaking a picture of awareness. Rather, at most a picture of something that is concomitant with awarenesss. Consider how the same technique might be used to detect glucose consumption/molecular activity in objects of study other than neurons. It would indicate pretty much the same thing, but no one would identify that with thought.
So it is fine to use a pet scan "image" as an indicator/sign of thought, but not fine to suppose that one is in any sense "looking at thought" when one views a pet scan.
Ditto with fMRI, for that indicates blood flow, which occurs (on a good day) in places other than the brain.

There may be better indicators of cognition. If there is one that is much harder to measure/indicate but much more reasonably identified with cognition itself (I'm granting this here only for the sake of argument), then to identify pet scan/fMRI images with cognition would be like the drunk looking at night for his keys where it was well-lit, because it was easier to see there, when he lost the keys in a place that was poorly lit.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more