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

[Steve3007]

Really, the Earth can logically be treated as flat in the same way as the Earth can be seen as immobile, but I expect the accusation had more to do with 2020 grumpiness than logic.

If I'm designing a sports oval, I will operate as though the Earth is a discworld. But if I'm building a giant particle accelerator or gravity wave observatory that relies on great precision, then I have to take Earth's curvature into account. By the same token, Ptolomy's geocentrism worked well enough until researchers broadened the scope of their projects.

I take your point, but it's a bit different. The surface of the Earth can, for practical purposes, be regarded as locally flat, on a scale which is small compared to the Earth's diameter, as an approximation. Whereas regarding the Earth as going around the Sun or vice versa being reference frame dependent isn't an approximation. In both cases we're talking about a difference in perspective due to a widening and generalizing of our viewpoint, but the reasons for the change in perspective are different.

[psyreporter]

We've already had that! There is no scientific verification of your 10% thesis.
Anyway, a brain's volume is reducible in two ways: through the removal of parts or through compression. And if brain tissue can be compressed, the structural and functional connectivity of the neurons therein might largely be preserved. Compression is not the same as destruction! Moreover, even a loss of neuronal connections and functions in one of its parts can be compensated by other ones owing to the brain's astonishing neuroplasticity.
The bottom line is that there are no good reasons to believe that the fact that there are conscious people with a (more or less) reduced brain volume is inconsistent with the assumption that consciousness is realized by and in brains or certain parts of brains.

It is not my thesis. An expert on the case, a professor of philosophy, mentions the following:

"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 professor philosophy of cognitive science from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

The compression theory does not seem to be accurate or plausible. On what basis can it be stated that the human brain has 90% compression potential? Is there a scientific basis for the idea?

Expert John Lorber mentions that brain weight is reduced to grams compared to the default 1.5 kg, which indicates that brain tissue is actually missing.

As it appears to me, there is no conclusive evidence by which it can be stated that the brain of the French man is compressed.

With regard to neuroplasticity. To apply that concept to a 10% fraction of a brain does not seem to be indicative of validity of the idea that concsiousness is produced by the brain.

For the brain to produce consciousness, it will require a functional theory to be applicable, which is highly improbable when the basis itself is plastic up to 90%. (or even 95% when considering the 600 cases in the research by professor John Lorber, of which more than 50% had an IQ higher than 100).

[Atla]

Come to think of it, such images of highly compressed brain tissue are consistent with my hypothesis of individual consciousness:

Everyone can only speculate at this point. So lemme speculate a whole lot.

The best I could come up with is that I think that existence is best seen as relational on the "particle level" (or infinitely relational on the Planck scale, or something like that). By that I mean that we shouldn't address this problem in the framework of classical space and time (which we know are sort of cognitive illusions), but more like how things relate to each other. I'm saying that the universe can be seen to be literally made of such relations, but this is a very specific usage of the world "relation". (This kind of "relation" comes closest to conceptualizing the universe using our limited human thinking.)

So qualia might be simply how physical stuff "is like" in relation to each other. It's simply what existence is like. When it comes to brains, people focus on the neurons, but I think the main focus should be on the EM fields kept in place by neuronal workings. I think most of the qualia we experience is probably what the EM field is "like", how X neurons or braincells or whatever relate to Y neurons or braincells or whatever electrically.

So a word like "frog" would be certain electric relations between certain groups of braincells or something like that. To put it as simply as I can I think the default idea could be that we are more or less experiencing the EM field. Every other field or form of matter or whatever is also experience, but we are centered on the EM field.

(Which brings up the next fascinating question. It's yet another aspect of the fine-tuned universe problem: how is it so arranged, that all these many kinds of qualia that we organisms experience, and which are all very useful for survival on this planet, are all so densely packed into a small subset of the EM spectrum, for us to use? And is that small subset surrounded by "darkness" qualia (which we often mistake for non-existence)? What could be outside even that?)

I guess the most interesting question here would be that, since the white matter is so grossly deformed, what kind of connections would exist in such a person's brain between distant brain regions? Even if most of the connections are still there, it looks like the signals would have to travel all around the fluid, take a much longer route and more time to get to the destination, than normal. Maybe they have very fragmented minds?

[Consul]

It is not my thesis. An expert on the case, a professor of philosophy, mentions the following:

"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 professor philosophy of cognitive science from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

The compression theory does not seem to be accurate or plausible. On what basis can it be stated that the human brain has 90% compression potential? Is there a scientific basis for the idea?

Cleeremans didn't measure the volume of, or count the number of neurons in that French man's brain, did he? So what's the scientific basis for "who's missing 90 percent of his neurons"?

Please reread the Rolls quote in this post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16742&p=357711&hilit=rolls#p357711

[Consul]

What Brain Structures are Required for Consciousness?

[The Beast]

From the pure lifeforce to human consciousness is a long winding road called evolution. Other species modified the lifeforce to suit their needs. We chose to have a bigger brain to accommodate our strategies of self-awareness and other awareness. If a subject has parents that are human, then the subject is human. As such a human with 10% brain is aided in his quest for survival with brain implants, ECD’s, ETT, EGT, etc.…etc. Obviously, it does not have the same hardware. If there is a discussion of possible Entities, then it is a developmental issue as well. Many individuals have a ready hardware and do not perceive others as well as humans with lesser amount of grey matter. This is a generalization of my own vias that it might be true as belief…of other. There are areas of the brain concerned with the development of Entities. So, Entities such as Morality or Justice or Beauty and… are embedded in the DNA as well as perceived by the self-system. There is a fine line of demarcation… or little of it or an actual destruction.

[Sy Borg]

Then I can expect the same skepticism. It's the simplest of logic. It's all one thing and it's also many things. Is the universe conscious? Is the Earth conscious? Of course they are. It's not as though intelligent animals like humans are separate from it.

Speaking of logic, I smell a fallacy here:

1. a is F.
2. a is part of b.
3. Therefore, b is F.

That argument represents a misunderstanding of my position.

1. A is part of B.

That's it.

Try this, sans the algebra:

1. Your brain is part of you
2. Brained beings are conscious
3. Therefore you are conscious.

Which leads to:

1. Animals are part of the Earth
2. Animals are conscious
3. Therefore the Earth is conscious.

Animal consciousness is an expression of the Earth, just as our individual consciousness is an expression of our whole self. I see nothing woo-ish about such a notion, as long as one does not romanticise. I see humanity's consciousness as a whole as being quite distinct from its individual consciousnesses. The larger group has its own interests that may or may not align with those of its individuals. Individual consciousnesses also impose conditions on its components, ie. internal microbial and cellular communities that are set back healthwise through the conscious decisions made by the brain, eg. drinking alcohol.

[psyreporter]

That argument represents a misunderstanding of my position.

1. A is part of B.

That's it.

Try this, sans the algebra:

1. Your brain is part of you
2. Brained beings are conscious
3. Therefore you are conscious.

Which leads to:

1. Animals are part of the Earth
2. Animals are conscious
3. Therefore the Earth is conscious.

Would that imply that consciousness has preceded substance?

[Consul]

Try this, sans the algebra:

1. Your brain is part of you
2. Brained beings are conscious
3. Therefore you are conscious.

Which leads to:

1. Animals are part of the Earth
2. Animals are conscious
3. Therefore the Earth is conscious.

Which is precisely an instance of that fallacy!
What can be validly deduced from 1+2 is:
"Therefore, the Earth has conscious parts/some parts of the Earth are conscious."

[psyreporter]

"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 professor philosophy of cognitive science from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"

Cleeremans didn't measure the volume of, or count the number of neurons in that French man's brain, did he? So what's the scientific basis for "who's missing 90 percent of his neurons"?

Please reread the Rolls quote in this post of mine: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16742&p=357711&hilit=rolls#p357711

Is there evidence that a brain can be compressed to 5% size? One of my arguments was: the brain consists of many parts. Would those parts be included in a compressed size and in a different shape?

Is there evidence that a normal brain can compress to 5% size? What about the many parts such as the cerebellum, frontal lobe, temperal lobe, pons, medulla, latteral ventricles, hypothalamus, corpus callosum, central sulcus, prietal lobe, thalamus, occipital lobe, cerebellar cortex, etc.? Are they included in a compressed size and in a different shape?

Your reply was the following:

I'm sorry, but if you want to learn more, you need to consult the scientific texts dealing with this issue, because I know much too little about it. But what I do know is that there isn't one case of a conscious person who is completely brainless.

As it appears, there is no basis for the idea that the brain of the French man is compressed. Considering the information that is available through the research of expert John Lorber, who mentions that brain weight is reduced to grams, the case of the French man would have to be an anomaly within the scope of the condition to support the compression theory.

"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 hydrocephalus". ~ John Lorber

The assumption that the French man is missing 90 percent of his neurons seems to be most plausible. It is supported by brain scans while the compression theory has no evidence.

So far the defense of the idea that consciousness is produced by the brain:

1) no people exist with "no brain"
2) the brain of people with hydrocephalus (or at least that of the French man) is compressed

No. 2 is questionable since it lacks evidence.

[Sy Borg]

That argument represents a misunderstanding of my position.

1. A is part of B.

That's it.

Try this, sans the algebra:

1. Your brain is part of you
2. Brained beings are conscious
3. Therefore you are conscious.

Which leads to:

1. Animals are part of the Earth
2. Animals are conscious
3. Therefore the Earth is conscious.

Would that imply that consciousness has preceded substance?

Not consciousness as we recognise it. That came with the animals.

[Sy Borg]

Try this, sans the algebra:

1. Your brain is part of you
2. Brained beings are conscious
3. Therefore you are conscious.

Which leads to:

1. Animals are part of the Earth
2. Animals are conscious
3. Therefore the Earth is conscious.

Which is precisely an instance of that fallacy!
What can be validly deduced from 1+2 is:
"Therefore, the Earth has conscious parts/some parts of the Earth are conscious."

Is your hand conscious? What about your bones, hair and fingernails? Conscious? How about your liver, lungs or heart? What about neurons? Is the brain conscious or are we conscious because of the brain's dynamic interaction with other major body systems?

Would you say that some parts of our bodies are conscious and others are not? And, if we are not part of the Earth, what are we part of? Pluto? A molecular cloud? God?

[Sculptor1]

FALSE SYLLOGISM OF THE WEEK AWARD GOES TO:

1. Animals are part of the Earth
2. Animals are conscious
3. Therefore the Earth is conscious.

To show a false syllogism change to elements to something more familiar.
let's say animals are carpet, and earth is house.
Carpets are part of a house.
Carpets are made of wool
Therefore houses are made of wool.

[Sy Borg]

PHILOSOPHIC FAILURE OF THE MONTH ...

Goes to Sculptor, whose analogy was shallow and not even close to being equivalent to my statements, demonstrating a lack of understanding of what was said.

[Atla]

As it appears, there is no basis for the idea that the brain of the French man is compressed. Considering the information that is available through the research of expert John Lorber, who mentions that brain weight is reduced to grams, the case of the French man would have to be an anomaly within the scope of the condition to support the compression theory.

Or maybe such compression is very much possible, when it happens gradually over decades. Here's another opinion:

When non-communicating hydrocephalus is acute it is very symptomatic and dangerous. It causes severe headaches and brain damage, and can even be fatal. When it is chronic, however, (and this is critical to understanding this case) it is far less dangerous and symptomatic. If the pressure slowly builds up then the brain will slowly compress under that pressure. The brain is like jelly, and can be impressively compressed while still maintaining its function. …

In this case of hydrocephalus, the patient was treated with the standard intervention, a shunt to remove excess fluid and reduce pressure. At age 14 he presented with poor balance and leg weakness. His shunt was not working properly. It was revised and his symptoms resolved. At the time of the case publication the patient was 44. He was again presenting with leg weakness, and again needed additional shunting which resolved the weakness.

However, the patient was found to have an IQ of 75, which is almost certainly a consequence of his chronic hydrocephalus. The images above are impressive, but perhaps more impressive is that his brain is mostly all still there, just pressed into a thin cortical rim. He did not lose 90% of his brain mass, as the commenter falsely assumed. There has probably been some atrophy over the years due to the chronic pressure, but not much.