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

[Count Lucanor]

First, on the basis that he has an IQ of 75, which under the Current Wechsler (WAIS–IV, WPPSI–IV) IQ classification falls in the "borderline" category. It implies "very close to being intellectually disabled".
Measurement and Evaluation in Psychology and Education

"very close" is not the same as intellectually disabled.

Nice. You will have no problem then with the statement that "very close" to not having a brain is not the same as not having a brain. Point settled.

There are people with a full brain who have a similar IQ. Further, the case of the student with an IQ of 126 who has just ~5% brain tissue shows that some people with the same condition have a higher IQ.

I think we just have settled this point. Next one, please.

That suggestion was addressed in the OP. How likely is it that his brain is compressed? Is 90% compression potential for a human brain plausible? After 10 years intensive study (following the publication in The Lancet in 2007), is there conclusive evidence? If not, why?

It's up to scientist to determine that, however, it is pretty clear also that these rare cases do not knock down the scientific fact that brains do produce consciousness. It is not like scientist have to rush now to begin to establish what is already well established.

The analogy does not apply. A miniature bicycle, 10% the size of a normal bicycle, but that still works, has ceased to be a bicycle? At best, all that your examples show is not that consciousness is not brain-generated, but that the way many people thought consciousness was generated by the brain, should be revised.

You forgot the part "taking part in traffic like a regular cyclist". Further, the idea being addressed is not a tiny brain but "a 10% fraction of a normal brain".

A bicycle is a bicycle even if it is left standing on a corner, it still has the potential to ride in traffic, which is not impossible either for a downsized version.

The "10% fraction" can be a misleading term, as in most cases it seems to refer to size, not to structure. A sponge can change its size without losing its material structure, and what happens is that it loses water. The hydrocephalus condition is the result of lost of fluid.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't think there are any better reasons to believe that "proto-consciousness is everywhere" than there are to believe that "proto-music-making is everywhere" or "proto-computing is everywhere" or "proto-volcanic eruptions are everywhere" or any properties that any arbitrary thing has. In other words, we could just as well say that "proto" anything is everywhere, and make it an interpretive exercise to characterize any phenomenon in a way that has something in common with the "proto" property we want to claim.

No, we are talking about the hard problem of consciousness - experience - not just mental processing.

The usual claim is that experiencing is a special phenomenon that can only come from a special organ, the brain. However, in its simplest forms consciousness may well not be nearly as rare and special as many of us imagine.

We like to think that consciousness somehow magically emerged from magical brains with these special magical qualities that has absolutely no correlate or precursor in nature. This would seemingly be the only time in all of evolution that this has occurred.

Consciousness is a "special phenomenon" in the sense that every phenomenon is a "special phenomenon." That was the whole point of my examples. Volcanic eruptions are a special phenomenon, computing is a special phenomenon, etc. Those things, like everything, ONLY take place when particular materials are in particular relationships, undergoing particular processes. That's the case for EVERY property, really. No property is found in everything. And the more complex--or at least more numerous, the materials, structures and processes, the more rare the properties in question are, because properties are simply what the materials/structures/processes in question are like.

[Sy Borg]

No, we are talking about the hard problem of consciousness - experience - not just mental processing.

The usual claim is that experiencing is a special phenomenon that can only come from a special organ, the brain. However, in its simplest forms consciousness may well not be nearly as rare and special as many of us imagine.

We like to think that consciousness somehow magically emerged from magical brains with these special magical qualities that has absolutely no correlate or precursor in nature. This would seemingly be the only time in all of evolution that this has occurred.

Consciousness is a "special phenomenon" in the sense that every phenomenon is a "special phenomenon." That was the whole point of my examples. Volcanic eruptions are a special phenomenon, computing is a special phenomenon, etc. Those things, like everything, ONLY take place when particular materials are in particular relationships, undergoing particular processes. That's the case for EVERY property, really. No property is found in everything. And the more complex--or at least more numerous, the materials, structures and processes, the more rare the properties in question are, because properties are simply what the materials/structures/processes in question are like.

We believed that volcanoes only occur under one type of condition until we found cryovolcaloes on other worlds. Not to mention geysers. So, no, material being ejected from worlds under pressure does not require very special conditions - just a buildup of pressure and a break in the surface.

Computing too needs no special conditions. The abacus and the slide rule were the first computers before the invention of electronic computing.

In each case, the conditions needed for the phenomena vary enormously, thus disproving your "not special" argument.

[Terrapin Station]

So, no, material being ejected from worlds under pressure does not require very special conditions

It's weird that I'm going to have to get this babyish with you, but I guess I need to:

So do you think that you might wind up with a volcano with a piece of plywood in your garage?

How about a cotton ball in your medicine cabinet? Are you thinking that might produce a volcanic eruption?

[Sy Borg]

So, no, material being ejected from worlds under pressure does not require very special conditions

It's weird that I'm going to have to get this babyish with you, but I guess I need to:

So do you think that you might wind up with a volcano with a piece of plywood in your garage?

How about a cotton ball in your medicine cabinet? Are you thinking that might produce a volcanic eruption?

You misunderstood my point. Giving me attitude makes you appear more insecure than sophisticated.

What is volcanism in its essence? A leak caused by underlying pressure forcing material through a break in a surface. That dynamic is seen all over the place in nature. Volcanoes, Geysers. Cryovolcanoes. Broken membranes in biology.

Can you think of similar equivalences all over nature for a sense of being?

[LuckyR]

It may be equally hard to find a fully functioning human without a human body. 0% brain tissue was never mentioned. It was merely mentioned that there are people that have "no brain" which is a valid statement in the light of the issue that the topic intends to address, namely, that some people are convinced that "a (full) brain" and correlated brain states are the origin of consciousness and human emotions, behaviour and thoughts.

What exactly does it mean to have "a brain"? Does a 5% fraction of a brain count as "a brain"? If so, would you merely base that idea on the fact that persons have been found who live a normal life with such a fraction of a brain? Would you have considered the idea to be valid if you had never learned about the existence of persons living with a fraction of a brain?

Are you one of these people? You don't sound like it. If you aren't, what do you think is the source of consciousness if not a brain?

[psyreporter]

Are you one of these people? You don't sound like it. If you aren't, what do you think is the source of consciousness if not a brain?

[psyreporter]

Are you one of these people? You don't sound like it.

Some appear to be functioning normally with an above average IQ (the average in the US is 98) and are capable of achieving an academic degree with just 5% brain tissue. On what basis would you assume that the mentioned people are not capable of philosophy and perhaps unique and exceptional insights?

Upon the diagnosis autism some doctors tell parents that their child will probably never be able to tie his/her own shoes. Jabob Barnett from Indiana, USA has proven that things may not be as they appear. His mother didn't accept the generally accepted disease perspective and instead, decided to let her son be himself. His mother decided to educate her son at home and at 14 years old his IQ was estimated at 170, higher then that of Albert Einstein. Jacob Barnett became the worlds youngest astrophysics researcher.

In 2012 he attended a TED talk in which he explained that any normal child can become a genius, by thinking differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq-FOOQ1TpE

The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing, Genius, and Autism
https://www.amazon.com/Spark-Mothers-Nu ... B009QJMV8A

By seeing the capacity of the brain to enable a human to perform in life with merely 5% brain tissue, perhaps what matters with regard to intelligence is not tied to brain tissue but in 'how' the brain is used. Therefor, the mentioned people could potentially equally perform as a human by 'thinking differently' with unique and potentially high value results for humanity.

If you aren't, what do you think is the source of consciousness if not a brain?

The topic merely intended to address the fact that some people appear to be convinced that human consciousness and emotions, behaviour and thoughts originate in the brain and correlated brain states. The mentioned cases show that that idea may not be valid. The OP asks simple questions to discover what other theory may be valid.

1) is it evident from the mentioned cases that consciousness does not originate in the brain?
2) is there a theory of consciousness that could explain the mentioned cases?

With regard to a possible theory: perhaps Neutrinos (Ghost Particles) play a role.

Neutrinos travel at the speed of light and in exact straight lines. The particles pass straight through stars such as the Sun, and straight through the earth's iron core. It is estimated that 10 trillion Neutrinos fly through every square centimeter of space per second.

Neutrinos can morph, increasing their mass up to 3000x in size (maybe more, recently a fourth heavy weight flavor was discovered) which is why the particle is called a "Ghost Particle". What could explain an act out of itself by a particle so small that it can pass straight through the core of the Sun? Perhaps it is a clue for the origin of consciousness.

What would happen when a Neutrino is created and actually flies into infinity? Endlessness would render it's begin purposeless. Perhaps, Neutrino's provide an origin of a force that attempts to render purpose to its creation, with as a physical result the exertion of a mass to interact with the visible world which is manifested as consciousness.

(2015) Paradigm shift for biology and consciousness theories

For the last twenty years, a wide range of philosophers, scientists etc. have made a concerted effort to come up with a fundamental theory to explain consciousness. It was in the words of Chalmers (1995) a ‘hard problem’ looking for a solution. Over those twenty years progress has been slow.

About the time the drive to come up with a theory of consciousness began, a paper was published (Goodman 1994) that argued for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell.

Surprisingly, weak force decoherence times over cellular distances are of the relevant dynamical timescale needed, suggesting that if any force is associated with the global properties in and between neurons (such as consciousness) it is the weak force. This finding concurs with a twenty year old theory that argues for a fundamental link between the weak force, electron neutrino and the biological cell[/b]. That theory also predicted the mass of the electron neutrino that is soon to be verified. The consequences for biology and future consciousness theories, of this radical change of paradigm, are considered.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f8f7/9 ... b60cae.pdf

In this theory consciousness arises on individual biological cell level through interaction with Neutrinos.

[Gertie]

Arjand

We don't have a settled scientific Theory of Consciousness, and there are particular difficulties in achieving one, because conscious experience is inherently first person/private/subjective, and not directly accessed by our third person/public/objective scientific methodologies. Hence 'The Hard Problem of Consciousness'.

But the biggest clue we have is the discovery of the neural correlates of conscious experiential states. It's not an answer, it's a bloody big clue though! And it would be perverse to ignore it. It might even give us a way in to eventually finding an answer, because those physical correlates are accessible to scientific study. Or it might not. But clearly it's significant.

But brains are themselves incredibly complex, and we're just at the beginning of understanding them as our instruments improve. When we find people with unusual conditions that's an opportunity to learn more. And maybe it will show that neural correlation doesn't hold. But the examples you've given aren't claiming that. They're fascinating and raise questions, but there are alternative possibilities like compression and plasticity which haven't been ruled out. And we just don't know enough yet to do so.

[Sculptor1]

Are you one of these people? You don't sound like it.

Some appear to be functioning normally with an above average IQ (the average in the US is 98) and are capable of achieving an academic degree with just 5% brain tissue. On what basis would you assume that the mentioned people are not capable of philosophy and perhaps unique and exceptional insights?

You have failed to move the premise of the thread one inch.
You have not given a single example of consciousness without a brain. Each example you have given includes evidence of people with brains, under difficult and unusual circumstances where the they have suffered greatly due to their deformity.
No where have you given an example of any conscious activity in the absence of brain tissue.
Thus the entire thread is a verbal masturbation.

[Jklint]

A little bit is all it takes even when posting to philosophy forums!

[Terrapin Station]

You misunderstood my point.

But you misunderstood mine, and I hate "arguing."

What is volcanism in its essence?

In its essence? Essences are about what an individual requires to call some x an F (some particular a type/class/concept name). Essences tell us about how an individual has formulated their concept of F-ness. So it depends on who we ask, and that's just going to tell us about how the person in question has formulated the concept in question (at the time they answer).

A leak caused by underlying pressure forcing material through a break in a surface. That dynamic is seen all over the place in nature. Volcanoes, Geysers. Cryovolcanoes. Broken membranes in biology.

It's not found in every instance of matter/structures/processes, is it?

[Sculptor1]

In its essence? Essences are about what an individual requires to call some x an F (some particular a type/class/concept name). Essences tell us about how an individual has formulated their concept of F-ness. So it depends on who we ask, and that's just going to tell us about how the person in question has formulated the concept in question (at the time they answer).

That's a very idealistic position to take.
Sadly most realist seem to think that essential qualities have to be wholly objective - and that is where the problem starts.
It might be okay when you are talking about a lump of chalk, but not so easy when concerned about morality.

[Faustus5]

I think that's simply a lie. He never addressed why there are any experiences in the first place.

He does address these issues, just not in the way you prefer or approve of. And obviously, you are far from being alone in this regard.

[Faustus5]

The experience's existence is not dependant on describing it to someone else, its reality is known from a 'direct' first person perspective.

But when you are trying to compose a scientifically and philosophically sound THEORY of consciousness, descriptions from subjects and measurements of what goes on in their bodies is literally all you have for data. And all you need to do (as if that was ever easy, ha!) is trace the causal chains between what is happening in their bodies and what leads then to make motor responses about their subjective experiences.

That is all a scientific theory of consciousness needs to do. There is nothing else it could ever do.