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

[psyreporter]

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

maybe is not evidence. Why favor such an assumption over one that is backed by a visual examination of a brain scan, compared with the notion by an expert that brain weight is reduced to grams?

The reason for favoring the compression theory appears to be an attempt to hold on to ones belief that consciousness is produced by the brain.

[Atla]

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

maybe is not evidence. Why favor such an assumption over one that is backed by a visual examination of a brain scan, compared with the notion by an expert that brain weight is reduced to grams?

The reason for favoring the compression theory appears to be an attempt to hold on to ones belief that consciousness is produced by the brain.

maybe is not evidence. How does he know that it's 50-100 grams, instead of like 500-1000?

On consciousness itself you are of course just as wrong as the neuroscientist, since consciousness is always 2 issues, not 1.

[Atla]

Considering that people can live fairly normal lives with one hemisphere removed, and considering that the French guy has about 75 IQ, maybe a guess could be something like 400-500 grams of fairly compressed brain tissue, based on the images?

[psyreporter]

maybe is not evidence. How does he know that it's 50-100 grams, instead of like 500-1000?

On consciousness itself you are of course just as wrong as the neuroscientist, since consciousness is always 2 issues, not 1.

Around 1980, professor John Lorber studied 600 cases of hydrocephalus of which 10% had merely 5% brain tissue of which 50% had an IQ higher than 100. He was a leading expert on the condition at that time.

Considering his extensive research, when he mentions that brain weight is reduced to grams, it is likely that he did not take it out of thin air. Brain weight is a plausible measure to determine the actual brain tissue.

More than 20 years ago a professor at Sheffield University was treating a student of mathematics for a minor ailment. The student was bright, having an IQ of 126. Dr Lorber examined the boy's head by Cat-scan to discover that the student had virtually no brain. The normal brain consists of two hemispheres that fill the cranial cavity, some 4.5cm deep. This student had a layer of cerebral tissue less than 1mm deep covering the top of his spinal column.

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

In my opinion, following his expert insight (or that of others when available), is most applicable. I have seen no evidence to support the idea that the brain of the French man is compressed. Further, there are cases of people with 5% brain tissue that have an IQ higher than 100.

[Atla]

maybe is not evidence. How does he know that it's 50-100 grams, instead of like 500-1000?

On consciousness itself you are of course just as wrong as the neuroscientist, since consciousness is always 2 issues, not 1.

Around 1980, professor John Lorber studied 600 cases of hydrocephalus of which 10% had merely 5% brain tissue of which 50% had an IQ higher than 100. He was a leading expert on the condition at that time.

Considering his extensive research, when he mentions that brain weight is reduced to grams, it is likely that he did not take it out of thin air. Brain weight is a plausible measure to determine the actual brain tissue.

More than 20 years ago a professor at Sheffield University was treating a student of mathematics for a minor ailment. The student was bright, having an IQ of 126. Dr Lorber examined the boy's head by Cat-scan to discover that the student had virtually no brain. The normal brain consists of two hemispheres that fill the cranial cavity, some 4.5cm deep. This student had a layer of cerebral tissue less than 1mm deep covering the top of his spinal column.

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

In my opinion, following his expert insight (or that of others when available), is most applicable. I have seen no evidence to support the idea that the brain of the French man is compressed. Further, there are cases of people with 5% brain tissue that have an IQ higher than 100.

The compression idea is also coming from neuroscientists. I couldn't find any data on postmortem examinations where they actually measured the brains of such people to be 50-100 grams, could you link it?

[The Beast]

In past centuries there were studies concerned with the circumference of the head; a correlation was made: less circumference equals less… everything. In atlases of anatomy (Meschan), there was mention of the diameter of vessels into the skull of people coming for arteriograms. Men and women were compared. Rich and poor diets were of greater significance as studies concluded that pre-natal care was responsible for the proliferation of nerve cells.
Hormonal studies of serotonin displayed differences for men and women. Yet, nothing accounts for areas of penumbra in the brain. A major stroke or a tumor might cause big structural changes. Microvascular disease causes malfunctioning in the perceptual and in the overall processing of information. Alcohol and drug consumption, oxygen variables, environmental variables account for losses of vital cells. Anyway, at autopsy the brain is weighted. If histology is available then plaque; calcifications, tumors, CSF, and water along with the different organisms able to trespass the brain barrier together with whatever is not mentioned account for the weight of the brain. A microcephalic savant might account for the higher IQ.

[Consul]

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?

As I already said in previous posts, whether we are part of the Earth depends on what exactly "the Earth" refers to. If the biosphere is part of the Earth, then we are part of the Earth.

The subject of consciousness is larger than the organ of consciousness, viz. the brain. An organism is conscious by virtue of its organ of consciousness. My hands, my bones, my hair, and my fingernails are part of a conscious creature, but they aren't conscious themselves.

[Terrapin Station]

Whether the question of the OP is rhetorical is a mystery. However, the second set of images to the right are of Brodmann’s area 42. So,( if I was guessing) I could make the case of silent speech in the rewiring of the STP and STS. In recent literature there is correlation (the rewiring) and the area of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Experiments with monkeys have found that their area 14 has a clear homologue in the human VMPFC.

The question is not rhetorical. It is a valid question.

Can it be said that a 10% fraction of a brain is to be considered "a brain"?

At question in the OP is whether it is a valid idea to consider that the brain is the origin of consciousness.

The assumption that consciousness originates in the brain does not by itself justify the idea that a 10% fraction of a brain is to be considered a brain.

The questions in the OP:

1) is it evident from the mentioned cases that consciousness does not originate in the brain?

Can it be established that a 10% fraction of a brain enables a human to perform normal in life? Can it be established that a 10% fraction of a brain produces consciousness?

The question in the OP enables the discovery of an answer to those questions, by which it would be possible to show that a 10% fraction of a brain could be a valid origin of consciousness.

I have seen no arguments other than an attack of the question in the OP on the basis of the notion that the mentioned people do have some brain tissue. I do not consider the attack valid if one cannot provide evidence or reasoning by which a 10% fraction of a brain is to be considered "a brain". And even if one could provide reasoning, it is not just to assume that one should have known such reasoning to be possible beforehand, or even to have assumed such reasoning to be basic logic, by which an attack on the question in the OP is invalid by definition.

2) is there a theory of consciousness that could explain the mentioned cases?

If it is not possible to provide arguments by which a 10% fraction of the brain can be the origin of consciousness, then, what theory of consciousness would be compatible? The mentioned cases may provide an opportunity to discover plausibility of other theories.

The topic simply intends to question the validity of the idea that consciousness - and thereby human emotions, behaviors and thoughts - originate in the brain.

Does the brain produce consciousness? Do the mentioned cases provide an ability to defend or disprove that view?

For one, the very story quoted says at the end, "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."

Aside from that, I'd want to research this story from various sources. which I haven't done yet.

[Sy Borg]

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?

As I already said in previous posts, whether we are part of the Earth depends on what exactly "the Earth" refers to. If the biosphere is part of the Earth, then we are part of the Earth.

The subject of consciousness is larger than the organ of consciousness, viz. the brain. An organism is conscious by virtue of its organ of consciousness. My hands, my bones, my hair, and my fingernails are part of a conscious creature, but they aren't conscious themselves.

So what? The whole of us is conscious, even if our hands, for instance, are no conscious in themselves.

And yes, the biosphere is part of the Earth, as is the hydrosphere, atmosphere and magnetosphere. Why would you consider dry rocks to be part of the Earth but wet rocks, which is what life is, are not?

I'm curious. What else do you think the biosphere might be part of, if not the Earth? Do you see life as loose, chaotic, unassociated agents like comets, asteroids and molecular clouds. How many asteroids are spawned from the Earth, spend all of their time on the Earth, dissipate without the Earth's qualities and then dissolve back into the Earth?

We are 100% absolutely part of the Earth. We are conscious, so the Earth is conscious. No, the Earth's core, mantle and crust rocks are not apparently conscious. We are conscious but, as you note, our microbiome, our hands or toenails are apparently not so.

[Consul]

I'm curious. What else do you think the biosphere might be part of, if not the Earth? Do you see life as loose, chaotic, unassociated agents like comets, asteroids and molecular clouds. How many asteroids are spawned from the Earth, spend all of their time on the Earth, dissipate without the Earth's qualities and then dissolve back into the Earth?

Well, the Earth's biosphere certainly belongs to the Earth.

We are 100% absolutely part of the Earth. We are conscious, so the Earth is conscious. No, the Earth's core, mantle and crust rocks are not apparently conscious. We are conscious but, as you note, our microbiome, our hands or toenails are apparently not so.

Is having conscious parts or being a part of something conscious the same as being conscious? – No!

[Sy Borg]

Is having conscious parts or being a part of something conscious the same as being conscious? – No!

That is a most intimidating exclamation mark. I will risk further emphatic punctuation by countering - Yes! - having conscious parts is the same as being conscious. However, being part of something conscious does not imply consciousness, eg. fingernails.

[psyreporter]

For one, the very story quoted says at the end, "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."

Aside from that, I'd want to research this story from various sources. which I haven't done yet.

It may be of interest to discover information about the student with an IQ of 126 with merely 5% brain tissue who was studied by professor John Lorber. For some reason, scientific information about the case appears to be missing. A reason may be that 1980 was a time before the internet. It may be an opportunity to discover new information. The case may be more interesting than that of the French man.

Remarkable story of maths genius with merely 5% brain tissue
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

[Atla]

I found this somewhere:

Again, in case you didn’t catch that, Lorber is saying the only brain tissue left was a one-millimeter-thick layer against the inside edge of the skull. According to Patrick Wall, a professor of anatomy at University College, London, this is nothing new.

Scores of similar accounts litter the medical literature, and they go back a long way . . . but the important thing about Lorber is that he’s done a long series of systematic scanning, rather than just dealing with anecdotes. He has gathered a remarkable set of data and he challenges, “How do we explain it?”

After this controversial study emerged, there was naturally a tidal wave of criticism. Dr. Lorber acknowledged that it is difficult to interpret brain scans, and he published a much more thorough study in 1984. He found that in the case of the math student who had an IQ of 126, fully 44 percent of his entire brain volume had been lost, and the rest of his brain tissue was compressed down into a super-thin layer lining the inside of the skull. Nonetheless, he was happily enjoying a significantly above-average IQ, and had no trouble thinking and remembering information. This shows just how far our concept of “thinking with the Source Field” can really go.

[Atla]

It's fascinating that the brain can behave that much like a sponge, I didn't know that.

[Terrapin Station]

For one, the very story quoted says at the end, "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."

Aside from that, I'd want to research this story from various sources. which I haven't done yet.

It may be of interest to discover information about the student with an IQ of 126 with merely 5% brain tissue who was studied by professor John Lorber. For some reason, scientific information about the case appears to be missing. A reason may be that 1980 was a time before the internet. It may be an opportunity to discover new information. The case may be more interesting than that of the French man.

Remarkable story of maths genius with merely 5% brain tissue
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

That was apparently a similar issue. As the Wikipedia article about Lorber states, "Explanations have been proposed for the first student's situation, with reviewers noting that Lorber's scans evidenced that the subject's brain mass was not absent, but compacted into the small space available, possibly compressed to a greater density than regular brain tissue."