Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

Couple of things wrong here.
1) Article says 50%-75% reduction. NOT 80%
2) The images have no provenance.
3) The man is not named.
4) The actual image may be selected to show worst contrast.
5) This is not a scientific article and "New Scientist" are a populist rag, not averse to a bit of audience manipulation and sensationalism.

The article in NewScientist was one of the first and used a raw estimate. Later articles mentioned up to 90% missing brain.

(2016) Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain

A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life - despite damaging 90 percent of his brain - is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious.

Despite decades of research, our understanding of consciousness - being aware of one's existence - is still pretty thin. Many scientists think that the physical source of consciousness is based in the brain, but then how can someone lose the majority of their neurons and still be aware of themselves and their surroundings?

First described in The Lancet in 2007, the case of the man who appears to be missing most of his brain has been puzzling scientists for almost 10 years.

Not only did his case study cause scientists to question what it takes to survive, it also challenges our understanding of consciousness.

In the past, researchers have suggested that consciousness might be linked to various specific brain regions - such as the claustrum, a thin sheet of neurons running between major brain regions, or the visual cortex.

But if those hypotheses were correct, then the French man shouldn't be conscious, with the majority of his brain damaged.

"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a cognitive psychologist from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

---

The case appears to be important for theories about the origin of consciousness. If humans can be conscious without a brain, then the idea that plants are conscious creatures becomes more plausible.

There are many similar cases:

(2006) Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain
The student was bright, having an IQ of 126. The doctor noticed that the student's head seemed a little larger than normal and he referred him to Dr Lorber for further examination. Dr Lorber examined the boy's head by Cat-scan to discover that the student had virtually no brain.

(1989) Boy Born Without Brain Proves Doctors Wrong
Doctors said he would never smile and would be lucky to live more than a few weeks, but a boy born without a brain is now 5 years old and laughs at Disney Channel programs, says his adoptive mother.
https://apnews.com/08099b98348a930469a232b9250f1509

(2014) Boy born without a brain lives to be 12 years old, dies peacefully
https://q13fox.com/2014/08/31/boy-born- ... eacefully/

(2018) Boy with 'no brain' stuns doctors as he learns to count and attends school in touching new documentary
Noah Wall was born with less than 2% of a brain - but he has amazed medics by growing into a happy, chatty little boy
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/boy ... rs-9778554

The 44 yo man never had a full sized brain, so it was not "missing".
As a child he suffered from hydrocephalus, and so his cerebral development was different.
The Lancet remarks that he had low IQ on three categories.
The brain still grew, but around the water filled vacuole.
I do not think this qualifies as a mystery and does not support any attempt to separate the genesis of mind from the cerebral structure. Far from it is, it verifies and asserts the necessary connection between a healthy brain and intelligence.
When you unpack the sensationalism from the facts, you get an interesting story about the histology and ontogenesis of the brain.

[Sculptor1]

(1989) Boy Born Without Brain Proves Doctors Wrong
Doctors said he would never smile and would be lucky to live more than a few weeks, but a boy born without a brain is now 5 years old and laughs at Disney Channel programs, says his adoptive mother.
https://apnews.com/08099b98348a930469a232b9250f1509

(2014) Boy born without a brain lives to be 12 years old, dies peacefully
https://q13fox.com/2014/08/31/boy-born- ... eacefully/

(2018) Boy with 'no brain' stuns doctors as he learns to count and attends school in touching new documentary
Noah Wall was born with less than 2% of a brain - but he has amazed medics by growing into a happy, chatty little boy
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/boy ... rs-9778554

********, more ********, and more ******** still

[Consul]

There you go! Dictionary writers too have noticed our tendency to refer to organisms and their workings as machines.

Almost everything in the universe appears to act either automatically or largely so, rendering the machine metaphor limited in usefulness as regards biology (or geology, given that the boundary between those domains was not always as clear-cut as it appears today).

Our machines primitively reproduce some dynamics of life, and opportunities for analogies between nature and artificial machines are everywhere. The issue here is language, namely, the semantic of the word "machine". It leads us to treat many living things like machines, as if they lack all sense of experience. This attitude, as I have grumbled about many times, lies behind historical atrocities committed by humans to other species.

It is a matter of semantics. The word "machine" can be applied to humans and other animals with or without pejorative connotations. For example, there's a difference between saying nonpejoratively that humans are machines and saying pejoratively that humans are just (only/merely) machines.

QUOTE>
"I shall be concerned to argue that there is nothing in the world over and above the entities of physics, and that everything operates according to the laws of physics. According to this view, living organisms (including human beings) are very complicated physical mechanisms and nothing more. Of course it is liable to cause misunderstanding if we say 'human beings are only very complicated physical mechanisms.' Stressing the 'only' may divert our audience from metaphysical contemplation to irrelevant questions of value judgement. In saying that humans are 'only' very complicated physical mechanisms I intend only to make an ontological point – a point about the make up of the universe. It is not to deny that some complicated physical mechanisms do very wonderful things. Some have written symphonies, others have erected gothic cathedrals, others have penetrated the secrets of the atom, and others yet again have erected beautiful edifices of pure mathematics. A physicalist metaphysics of course does not deny any of this. Indeed, to say that a leaf of a tree, or even a single living cell, is only a complicated physical mechanism can be taken wrongly. A physicalist is well aware of the extraordinary complexity of a living cell and even more of a whole leaf of a tree, orders of awesome complexity far and away above that of any human artefact of the sort that our aesthetic colleagues enthuse about.
The 'only' in 'only a very complex physical mechanism' is an ontological one, and neutral about value. It takes no sides about what we find most admirable: some may prefer to immerse themselves in contemplation of the leaf, others of the cathedral or symphony."

(Smart, J. J. C. Our Place in the Universe: A Metaphysical Discussion. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. pp. 79-80)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

The article in NewScientist was one of the first and used a raw estimate. Later articles mentioned up to 90% missing brain.

(2016) Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain

One of the authors of the original report said the following:

"It is hard for me [to say] exactly the percentage of reduction of the brain, since we did not use software to measure its volume."

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... s-doctors/

So where do the 90% come from?

Meet The Man Who Lives Normally With Damage to 90% of His Brain

"Update 3 Jan 2017: This man has a specific type of hydrocephalus known as chronic non-communicating hydrocephalus, which is where fluid slowly builds up in the brain. Rather than 90 percent of this man's brain being missing, it's more likely that it's simply been compressed into the thin layer you can see in the images above. We've corrected the story to reflect this."

See: So his brain’s just squished (rather than only 10% there): A Bonsai Brain

The case appears to be important for theories about the origin of consciousness. If humans can be conscious without a brain, then the idea that plants are conscious creatures becomes more plausible.

Those cases in no way show that "humans can be conscious without a brain", because all they show is that humans can be conscious without a complete brain!

There are many similar cases:

(1989) Boy Born Without Brain Proves Doctors Wrong
Doctors said he would never smile and would be lucky to live more than a few weeks, but a boy born without a brain is now 5 years old and laughs at Disney Channel programs, says his adoptive mother.
https://apnews.com/08099b98348a930469a232b9250f1509

"He survived because the brain stem contains the nerve center that controls breathing and circulation. The parts of the brain that allow humans to think and coordinate muscular movement - the cerebrum and cerebellum - never formed."

The brain stem is part of the brain, so the boy isn't completely brainless.
Anyway, it's far from clear that he really has phenomenal consciousness, because there can be wakefulness, responsiveness, and perceptual awareness without phenomenal consciousness.

(2018) Boy with 'no brain' stuns doctors as he learns to count and attends school in touching new documentary
Noah Wall was born with less than 2% of a brain - but he has amazed medics by growing into a happy, chatty little boy
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/boy ... rs-9778554

Notice the quotation marks around "no brain" in the title!

"Noah Wall was born with less than 2% of a brain.
…
The procedure was so successful that, over time, Noah's brain has grown into the space once occupied by the fluid.
…
Over the past year, Noah's brain has continued to develop beyond all expectation.

A brain scan taken when he was three years old showed that his brain had expanded to 80% of a normal brain - an incredible result that no doctor expected."

[psyreporter]

See: So his brain’s just squished (rather than only 10% there): A Bonsai Brain

90% compression potential for a brain does not seem plausible. The research by pediatrics professor John Lorber, a specialist, indicates that brain weight is reduced to grams compared to the default 1.5 kg, which implies that brain tissue is actually missing. That it is actually the case, is evident from the notion that holding a light besides the head of the children will light up their skull.

Children with hydranencephaly are essentially missing every part of their brain except for the brain stem and cerebellum and a few other structures. Holding a light near such a child's head illuminates the skull like a jack-o'-lantern.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ple-brain/

Professor John Lorber studied hundreds of cases including that of a student with an IQ of 126.

Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain

The student was bright, having an IQ of 126. The doctor noticed that the student's head seemed a little larger than normal and he referred him to Dr Lorber for further examination. Dr Lorber examined the boy's head by Cat-scan to discover that the student had virtually no brain.

Dr Lorber systematically studied hydrocephalus and documented over 600 scans of people with this condition. He divided them into four groups: people with nearly normal brains; those with between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 70 per cent to 90 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid; those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with fluid. The latter group constituted less than 10 per cent of the study and half of these people were profoundly mentally disabled. However, the other half had IQs over 100.

"I can't say whether the mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear it is nowhere near the normal 1.5kg and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitive deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrochephalus".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

(1980) Professor Lorber: Is Your Brain Really Necessary?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/210/4475/1232

Those cases in no way show that "humans can be conscious without a brain", because all they show is that humans can be conscious without a complete brain!

It is important to notice that the French man is married, has two children and works as a civil servant.

The relative normal functioning of the mentioned people indicates that something other than brains may be at play that enables them to perform as a human. That something would be the origin of consciousness and the notion of "otherness" would indicate that consciousness may not originate in the brains.

Phenomenal Consciousness without Cerebral Cortex?
Contrary to what many doctors apparently assume, there is overwhelming evidence that hydranencephalic children, who lack a cerebral cortex, are creature conscious in a robust sense.
http://philosophyofbrains.com/2007/05/2 ... ortex.aspx

[Sy Borg]

To that end, if we are to consider a plant's possible experiences, how about fungi? Mycofungus is a food of the future - a tasty, nutritious, versatile meat replacement that can be readily grown underground in compact "nurseries". What a fungus or plant may feel, or not, remains an open question, (despite what neurocentric thinkers may claim), but we can safely assume it's not at all like the experiences of familiar animals. It's clear that, even if central nervous systems are a means of concentrating consciousness rather than generating it, they are the only means by which an entity can suffer.

So, while the answer to the OP's question is "no", achieving the moral status of animals is not exactly a guarantee of kindly treatment anyway. Not while we think of our animals as "stock", "resources" and "biological machines". It's curious how the common use of metonymy can shape our attitudes.

The moral status of animals is improving rapidly, in part by the emerging topic of Animal Ethics in academic philosophy.

(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... 0b03f3a4a4

(2019) Animal Ethics: an important emerging topic for society
https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/anim ... and-ethics

Such a shame such movements didn't take hold fifty years ago. Now it's simply a matter of too little, too late. Countless animal species are now endangered, and almost all large wild animals are on the brink of disappearing.

Further, with populations rising - and now, increasing poverty - there will be no hope of improvements for animals. Rather, the treatment of them will be ever more ruthless. Economic rationalism will continue to be prioritised over ethics and compassion, as always. Plants are prioritised even lower than most animals, so there is zero hope of improvement there in the foreseeable future.

[Consul]

90% compression potential for a brain does not seem plausible.

I don't know how compressible working brains are.

The research by pediatrics professor John Lorber, a specialist, indicates that brain weight is reduced to grams compared to the default 1.5 kg, which implies that brain tissue is actually missing. That it is actually the case, is evident from the notion that holding a light besides the head of the children will light up their skull.

Children with hydranencephaly are essentially missing every part of their brain except for the brain stem and cerebellum and a few other structures. Holding a light near such a child's head illuminates the skull like a jack-o'-lantern.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ple-brain/

"Case studies suggest that some forms of consciousness may not require an intact cerebrum.
…
Humans are more than just conscious; they are also self-aware. Scientists differ on how they distinguish between consciousness and self-awareness, but here is one common distinction: consciousness is awareness of your body and your environment; self-awareness is recognition of that consciousness—not only understanding that you exist but further comprehending that you are aware of your existence.
…
Although many children with hydranencephaly appear relatively normal at birth, they often quickly develop growth problems, seizures and impaired vision. Most die within a year; some live for years or even decades. Such children lack a cerebral cortex, but at least a few give every appearance of genuine consciousness. They respond to people and things in their environment. They smile, laugh and cry. They know the difference between familiar people and strangers. And they prefer some kinds of music to others. If some children with hydranencephaly are conscious, then the brain does not require an intact cerebral cortex to produce consciousness."

As I already said, behavioral responsiveness to stimuli is not the same as and doesn't even entail phenomenal consciousness. To define consciousness as "awareness of your body and your environment" is to define transitive, i.e. perceptual, consciousness rather than phenomenal consciousness, the former of which can occur without the latter. Intransitive consciousness is wakefulness or arousal. As opposed to phenomenal consciousness, both transitive consciousness and intransitive consciousness come in different (nonbinary) degrees.

The crucial point is that if children with hydranencephaly are both transitively conscious, i.e. perceptually aware of their bodies and their environment, and intransitively conscious, i.e. awake and responsive, it doesn't follow that they are also phenomenally conscious, that the inner light of subjective experience is switched on in their minds.

QUOTE>
"It is important to keep these different notions of consciousness distinct. Failure to do so can lead to confusion and error. For instance, it might lead one to move from the obviously true claim that a dog is conscious of its owner entering the home (that is: it perceives—or is creature conscious of—the owner doing so, responding with manifest joy at her arrival) to the conclusion that the dog’s perceptual state is itself a conscious one. It may be that this inference is warranted. That depends on the outcome of our present inquiry in this book. But it certainly isn't warranted merely because the term 'conscious' crops up in both premise and conclusion. For those two uses of the term are conceptually quite different, as we have seen."

(Carruthers, Peter. Human and Animal Minds: The Consciousness Questions Laid to Rest. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019. p. 6)
<QUOTE

Professor John Lorber studied hundreds of cases including that of a student with an IQ of 126.

…

(1980) Professor Lorber: Is Your Brain Really Necessary?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/210/4475/1232

"In 1980, Roger Lewin published an article in Science, "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?", about Lorber studies on cerebral cortex losses. He included a report by Lorber, never published in any scientific journal, about the case of a Sheffield University student who had a measured IQ of 126 and passed a Mathematics Degree but who had hardly any discernible brain matter at all since his cortex was extremely reduced by hydrocephalus."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lorber

Given the nonexistence of a peer-reviewed scientific paper by Lorber about the (alleged) case of that math student, the truth of his report is questionable.

Those cases in no way show that "humans can be conscious without a brain", because all they show is that humans can be conscious without a complete brain!

It is important to notice that the French man is married, has two children and works as a civil servant.

The relative normal functioning of the mentioned people indicates that something other than brains may be at play that enables them to perform as a human. That something would be the origin of consciousness and the notion of "otherness" would indicate that consciousness may not originate in the brains.

No, again, those pathological cases show merely that not all parts of the brain are necessary for (phenomenal) consciousness. They don't show that all parts of the brain are not necessary for it.
Consciousness may be variably realizable by and in different parts of the brain; but even if this is true, it by no means follows that its realization doesn't require any part(s) of the brain.
The same is true of cognitive abilities, which may be variably realizable by different parts of the brain too, so that the destruction or loss of one part can be functionally compensated by another one.

Phenomenal Consciousness without Cerebral Cortex?
Contrary to what many doctors apparently assume, there is overwhelming evidence that hydranencephalic children, who lack a cerebral cortex, are creature conscious in a robust sense.
http://philosophyofbrains.com/2007/05/2 ... ortex.aspx

The author simply suggests a test for phenomenal consciousness:

"If hydranencephalic children exhibit differences between sleep phases similar to the differences between REM and non-REM sleep, then that is evidence that they are phenomenally conscious. 
Lynne Trease is the mother of Nikki, an eight-year-old hydranencephalic girl.  You can read Nikki’s story in a five-part story by the Omaha World-Herald.  Lynne wrote me as follows: “I believe that Nikki does have REM sleep cycles as she has noticeable rapid eye movements frequently while sleeping”.  It would be interesting to know if there are any rigorous studies on this matter, and if not, it’s time for some neuroscientists to look into it.  For if Lynne is right, the burden of proof starts shifting to anyone who denies that these children are phenomenally conscious."

This blog entry was written in 2007, so are there "any rigorous studies on this matter" now? Anyway, it's up to experts to judge whether "differences between sleep phases similar to the differences between REM and non-REM sleep" are really evidence for phenomenal consciousness.

[Benj96]

Plants and animals do that which helps them to survive. They are driven by evolution to elect traits or develop ecological niches that benefit their continuity of existence. "Morality" on the other hand is an inherently human term used to describe "how best to survive/live?" Or "What is the definition of a good existence verses a bad one" and we apply this questioning to our own natural instincts, drives to survive, behaviour and interactions with others and our environment under the broad subject of ethics.

Now, ethically speaking, many plant adaptations could be considered harmful or unethical. For example parasitism where a plant or animal uses another organism as a host to survive often to the detriment of the host. Similarly "competition" itself - a fundamental pillar of evolution could be considered immoral as it requires a loser in order to provide a winner. Often the loser is that species which is outcompeted and driven to extinction. So when we discuss moral status of other living things, we really need to consider their capacity to choose between moral and immoral outcomes... or in other words the perspective we apply to them in the first place. If a plant has little choice of where to grow or how to adapt can we argue they are immoral or unethical if they inadvertently harm something else in the process? Another idea to consider is that plants are the basis for habitability of the planet by producing oxygen and regulating the climate so one could argue that they are an extension of our own moral imperative to maintain a safe planet and environment for our own existence. Thirdly...if plants are given a moral status equal to animals or even humans how does one justify consuming them? If you shouldn't harm another animal or plant because of their moral and ethical status then you are not entitled to survive by that fact because you cannot eat. And we also evolved naturally from the same systems as plants and animals so why should we in theory behave differently to other animals and plants? I think in the sense of universal morality you instead should use the term equilibrium... if a system maintains a balance where neither side dominates and thus allows both to exist to a certain degree but never fully and outright then it could be considered egalitarian, equal and moral. In this case plants should be offered a moral status whereby we may use them and eat them as we like provided we maintain the necessary amount of their own natural environment to protect the planet from human made interference.

[Pattern-chaser]

What is "good" for a plant? This question is valid. As such, "plant morality" is valid.

For me, the idea that plants are living things is beyond doubt, that they communicate is much the same, and that they might be conscious is a speculation that I am sympathetic to. But to speculate on a speculation, about the possible moral values plants might hold, is ... premature, IMO.

[Pattern-chaser]

What is "good" for a plant? This question is valid. As such, "plant morality" is valid.

For me, the idea that plants are living things is beyond doubt, that they communicate is much the same, and that they might be conscious is a speculation that I am sympathetic to. But to speculate on a speculation, about the possible moral values plants might hold, is ... premature, IMO.

Herr Nagel has observed the difficulty of knowing what it's like to be a bat. How much more difficult is it to know what it's like to be quaking aspen?

[psyreporter]

For me, the idea that plants are living things is beyond doubt, that they communicate is much the same, and that they might be conscious is a speculation that I am sympathetic to. But to speculate on a speculation, about the possible moral values plants might hold, is ... premature, IMO.

What is the origin of morality? It is valuing of "good". Because the question What is "good" for a plant? is valid, plant morality as a concept is valid.

Morality is not about right and wrong (i.e. a choice). Morality is about valuing on the basis of which one can denote right and wrong but the denotion itself is not morality but ethics. Ethics in effect for a plant may be its performance in the context of its existence as a specie.

A potential expression of plant morality might be that plants develop a mechanism by which they provide food to plants in need. There is an element of valuing involved for such to be possible. Similarily one could see such in effect when plants develop a symbiosis with animals.

The Whitebark Pine tree invests all its energy in growing a high nutrition seed that can only be eaten by a Nutcracker (pine crow). The tree provides that nutrition for the "good" of another by which the "good" of the tree itself is served. How does the plant know what to create for the crow? There is a clear value element involved. Would the tree behave otherwise? No, because it is a moral being that serves a "good" beyond itself.

Soul Mates: Nutcrackers, Whitebark Pine, and a Bond That Holds an Ecosystem Together
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/news/soul ... -together/

Herr Nagel has observed the difficulty of knowing what it's like to be a bat. How much more difficult is it to know what it's like to be quaking aspen?

Professor Suzanne Simard's notion that trees are more like humans than many people think is evidence that it may be possible for humans to imagine what it's like to be a plant.

Her 30 years of research in Canadian forests have led to an astounding discovery: trees talk, communicating often and over vast distances. Trees are social creatures that are much more like humans than you may think.
https://upliftconnect.com/trees-talk-to ... can-learn/

[popeye1945]

Life is consciousness, consciousness is life.

[Sy Borg]

Life is consciousness, consciousness is life.

I have thought that very thought more than once. I had a humdinger of debate last year with a very bright fellow here. He was convinced that brains were necessary for consciousness, I wondered if, say, microbes might have structures that act equivalently to brains and nervous systems, even if much simpler.

On the other hand, when we are in a deep sleep, we are very much alive but our consciousness is minimal, reduced to just temperature scanning and other fundamental functions. Plantlike? Is lucid consciousness needed for moral status? What of brilliant artworks? Ecologically important and beautiful geology? Giant redwoods and eucalypts? The situation becomes complex due to the strong links between people and the beings and things they value.

But we have to draw lines somewhere because we must exploit and kill other organisms to live. These days the OP's question seems a tad moot because, as a group, we humans happily destroy any ecosystems if it is profitable, no matter how sensate or aware its denizens. Then again, look at how Americans are treating each other at the moment, and they are all (allegedly) human. There are times when it's probably safer to be a plant ...

[popeye1945]

Hi Greta, Yes there are a great many problems in establishing a reasonable morality, in the context of the natural world where life lives upon life. We must do the best we can, and we have not reached that point yet. As I have stated else where, a morality must be base upon our common biology, and that does not leave out our animal relatives. That plants are conscious beings I personally have no trouble with, consciousness goes all the way down, so much so that I say without difficulty, that life is consciousness and consciousness if life. Life arose from inanimate nature, so speculations can really get rather reaching.

[Sy Borg]

Life arose from inanimate nature, so speculations can really get rather reaching.

The line is blurred with viruses, prions and viroids.

Funny how fungi don't get much of a shout out, and they are more like animals than plants, or at least they are also heterotrophic. And slime mould is known to be intelligent, despite being without a brain.