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

[Atla]

The article merely makes an 'attempt' to explain away the cases and does so by reducing 'the brain' with a simplistic reduction to 1) grey matter and 2) white matter of which is then argued that white matter may not be required (because it is evidently missing) and that the brain can be compressed, of which is then said that it is merely a suggestion that until now was never proven to be possible.

Yes but it beats the attempt of ignoring the issue that billions of people do seem to need brains, while no functioning human with no brain tissue has ever been seen.

What is named 'white matter' that is missing is in reality many named parts such as "cerebellum, frontal lobe, temperal lobe, pons, medulla, latteral ventricles, hypothalamus, corpus callosum, central sulcus, prietal lobe, thalamus, occipital lobe, cerebellar cortex, etc."

White matter is more like the wiring inside and between these parts. It can be seen in the article that of course there is also white matter left, which also seems to be in a compressed state, but the white matter in the middle of the head seems to be missing. So looks like not only are the brain regions compressed (and maybe parts of them are missing) and pushed towards the skull, but also maybe only adjacent brain regions are more connected through white matter. Brain regions farther away from each other are either unconnected, or badly connected the signals have to travel all around the fluid.

Further, professor John Lorber was specifically mentioning the amount of brain tissue in weight. Why would he do so? Would it be a natural choice to use brain tissue weight in public communication? Wouldn't it be easier to use a percentage?

Perhaps it could indicate that scrutiny of his work has caused him to divert from the logical '5% there' statement to communicate '50 grams instead of 1.5 kilo' so that it is not possible to argue that the brain is merely compressed.

That was his estimate, it could be wrong and to my knowledge these scans weren't published either.

science's traditional view of brain function is that it is organized in separate and highly specialized systems

I agree (and also know from how my own mind seems to work) that this view is indeed wrong. Brain regions more or less have default roles where they perform default functions, but all that can be rewired. However, when other brain regions take over functions, they are not as good at performing them as the default region. Also, even default functions may be performed at multiple places at once, information is stored at multiple places at once etc.

[Atla]

.

To be more exact, the fluid seems to press the brain regions towards the edge of the hemispheres. There also seems to be this vertical compressed brain tissue in the middle of the head where the hemispheres meet. And the cerebellum and brainstem seem mostly unaffected, these details seem important.

I read a theory somewhere that what matters is how fast the compression occurs. When it happens slowly over time, the brain has time to more or less adjust, but when it happens quickly it can lead to severe disability.

[Atla]

To be more exact, the fluid seems to press the brain regions towards the edge of the hemispheres. There also seems to be this vertical compressed brain tissue in the middle of the head where the hemispheres meet.

Hmm which might explain why this condition can lead to above-average IQs. In the middle of the head, the left side of the right hemisphere and the right side of the left hemisphere are pushed together, shortening the distance signals have to travel between them. Fascinating stuff..

[SteveKlinko]

Read any good books on Electromagnetic Theory, Eye Physiology, and Brain Physiology. It is Clear. My journey into How We See forced me to take some time and get familiar with the basic concepts. If you are familiar with these topics then it is your task to show me why all that Knowledge is not true.

Perception roughly has an external world -> eyes -> optic nerves -> visual cortex -> other brain regions causality trajectory, but how/why would that translate to a PW -> CW causality trajectory?

So, where in the chain do you put Conscious Experience? For me it is a further Processing Stage that comes after the Visual Cortex and maybe other Brain regions.

Since the CW is probably one and the same as the PW, it's probably nonsensical to put them on a chain.

They seem to be separate Phenomena and it makes sense to separate them until it can be shown how they are the same thing. It is not obvious that they are the same thing. It is obvious that they exist in different Categories of Phenomena.

[Atla]

Perception roughly has an external world -> eyes -> optic nerves -> visual cortex -> other brain regions causality trajectory, but how/why would that translate to a PW -> CW causality trajectory?

So, where in the chain do you put Conscious Experience? For me it is a further Processing Stage that comes after the Visual Cortex and maybe other Brain regions.

Since the CW is probably one and the same as the PW, it's probably nonsensical to put them on a chain.

They seem to be separate Phenomena and it makes sense to separate them until it can be shown how they are the same thing. It is not obvious that they are the same thing. It is obvious that they exist in different Categories of Phenomena.

It's just a way of thinking that there are different categories of phenomena, unless you can show that there indeed are.

[SteveKlinko]

What about the fact that there are people that manage to live a normal life with merely 5-10% brain tissue?

As long as the important parts of Sensory Cortex are mostly intact then the Connection to the Brain will be mostly unnoticed by the patient. What is the case? Has the Sensory Cortex also shrunk? Important parts of the Sensory Cortex being: Visual Cortex, Auditory Cortex, Motion Areas.

A study in 2008 showed that when vision is lost, the brain can rewire itself completely and the part that would previously perform as 'Visual Cortex' would do other tasks completely unrelated to processing vision.

Scientists unmask brain's hidden potential
New findings explain how the brain compensates for vision loss; suggests much more versatility than previously recognized.

"The brain's ability to reorganize itself is much greater than previously believed," explains senior author Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, Director of the Berenson-Allen Center and Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School (HMS). "In our studies [in which a group of sighted study subjects were blindfolded for five days], we have shown that even in an adult, the normally developed visual system quickly becomes engaged to process touch in response to complete loss of sight. The speed and dynamic nature of the changes we observed suggest that rather than establishing new nerve connections – which would take a long time – the visual cortex is unveiling abilities that are normally concealed when sight is intact."
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/906527

How could this be explained when as you indicate, 'Visual Sense' originates from something that is 'physical' (the Visual Cortex being the 'origin' or provider of a 'causality trajectory')?

If the Brain reorganizes then so do the Connections to the IM and CM get reorganized. The Conscious Mind is always presenting Conscious Experience based on what the Brain is doing. If the Brain reorganizes the Conscious Experience will change in response to that. With the Backwards Causality of Idealism you are expecting me to Believe that the CM reorganizes the PM after the loss of Vision.

With regard the people with merely 5% brain tissue to have an intact Visual Cortex. It may be interesting to investigate such cases to discover whether that is so.

A mathematics student with an IQ of 126 had merely 5% brain tissue. Professor John Lorber who investigated the case, has investigated over 600 similar cases.

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".

Remarkable story of maths genius who had almost no brain
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarka ... -1.1026845

Degenerate cases are interesting but are probably completely Misleading without a true understanding of what Normal Brains and Normal Conscious Experiences are.

The real point of all this is that Physicalist Science has proved to be an Embarrassment when it comes to Explaining Conscious Experience. They Believe that Conscious Experience is in the Neurons and have Zero Explanation for how that could be true. But Conscious Experience defies all attempts to push it into the Neurons. The Conscious Visual Experience, for example, will always just float there embedded in the front of our faces and away from the Neural Activity. Science is Silent and Dumbfounded about this simple and obvious Visual Experience that we See. I have suggested that Science needs a change of Perspective, if they will ever understand the Visual Experience.

When it concerns sensing to be primary, wouldn't you agree that the same can be said with regard Visual Experience (Visual Cortex and the causality trajectory of which you argue that it is 'clear' that clear that it precedes conscious experience) and that before such a physical process is possible, the act of sensing (which involves value equation!) must have taken place beforehand?

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

The act of Sensing is a Physical Process. What do you mean by Sensing? What is a Value Equation?

[psyreporter]

Scientists unmask brain's hidden potential
"Our brain captures different types of information from the world -- sounds, sights, smells or tactile sensations," adds Pascual-Leone. "The impressions we form require us to merge these various different elements, but science's traditional view of brain function is that it is organized in separate and highly specialized systems."

But, he says, as the results of this research demonstrate, that is not the case.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/906527

How could this be explained when as you indicate, 'Visual Sense' originates from something that is 'physical' (the Visual Cortex being the 'origin' or provider of a 'causality trajectory')?

If the Brain reorganizes then so do the Connections to the IM and CM get reorganized. The Conscious Mind is always presenting Conscious Experience based on what the Brain is doing. If the Brain reorganizes the Conscious Experience will change in response to that. With the Backwards Causality of Idealism you are expecting me to Believe that the CM reorganizes the PM after the loss of Vision.

Why would the brain reorganize itself? Do you believe that neuroplasticity can be explained using a predetermined program that originates from Darwinian natural selection in humans that lost vision and subsequently reproduced?

When it concerns sensing to be primary, wouldn't you agree that the same can be said with regard Visual Experience (Visual Cortex and the causality trajectory of which you argue that it is 'clear' that clear that it precedes conscious experience) and that before such a physical process is possible, the act of sensing (which involves value equation!) must have taken place beforehand?

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

The act of Sensing is a Physical Process. What do you mean by Sensing? What is a Value Equation?

Before the act of sensing is originated, do you not agree that there must be a factor that will facilitate the sensing potential and that results in subjective experience?

What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed if it had never sensed? Is it possible to overcome this absurdity with logic? If not, how can a physicalist perspective (CM originating from PM) be valid?

[SteveKlinko]

Scientists unmask brain's hidden potential
"Our brain captures different types of information from the world -- sounds, sights, smells or tactile sensations," adds Pascual-Leone. "The impressions we form require us to merge these various different elements, but science's traditional view of brain function is that it is organized in separate and highly specialized systems."

But, he says, as the results of this research demonstrate, that is not the case.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/906527

How could this be explained when as you indicate, 'Visual Sense' originates from something that is 'physical' (the Visual Cortex being the 'origin' or provider of a 'causality trajectory')?

If the Brain reorganizes then so do the Connections to the IM and CM get reorganized. The Conscious Mind is always presenting Conscious Experience based on what the Brain is doing. If the Brain reorganizes the Conscious Experience will change in response to that. With the Backwards Causality of Idealism you are expecting me to Believe that the CM reorganizes the PM after the loss of Vision.

Why would the brain reorganize itself? Do you believe that neuroplasticity can be explained using a predetermined program that originates from Darwinian natural selection in humans that lost vision and subsequently reproduced?

Every time Neurons fire for any input, the whole Brain can be slightly changed. This is very mechanistic and is the same thing that happens when an Artificial Neural Net is reconfigured. The Brain doesn't make some kind of Decision to reorganize, it happens Automatically and Mechanistically because of how the Brain works.

When it concerns sensing to be primary, wouldn't you agree that the same can be said with regard Visual Experience (Visual Cortex and the causality trajectory of which you argue that it is 'clear' that clear that it precedes conscious experience) and that before such a physical process is possible, the act of sensing (which involves value equation!) must have taken place beforehand?

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

The act of Sensing is a Physical Process. What do you mean by Sensing? What is a Value Equation?

Before the act of sensing is originated, do you not agree that there must be a factor that will facilitate the sensing potential and that results in subjective experience?

What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed if it had never sensed? Is it possible to overcome this absurdity with logic? If not, how can a physicalist perspective (CM originating from PM) be valid?

I don't subscribe to the Physicalist Perspective. I promote the Connectist Perspective where the Conscious Mind is Connected to the Physical Mind (Brain). With Connectism the Conscious Mind exists in a separate Conscious Space concept apart from the Physical Mind which is in the normal Physical Space that we know from Science. The Inter Mind is the Bridge between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind.

[GrayArea]

The inter mind as you put it cannot be deduced by means of science, because science deals with physicality. Logic is a product of the inter mind, therefore it cannot explain the inter mind in words or logical sentences—whatever belongs to logic. Adding on, the inter mind cannot be deduced by means of self-analysis using our own minds either, because it is defined as something in between our own minds and the physicality of things outside the mind. We can thus only understand the inter mind through itself.


I could also put this in other words. We may be able to deduce that, for the color red to appear, the neurons must be altered in some specific fashion, and that the color red has to be how the neurons “take in”/”translate” their own said specific alterations as. But we can not deduce exactly why the color red corresponds to a specific physical alteration within the object(s) we call neuron(s), while using standard logic. However, we might still be able to “feel” it subconsciously, because the inter mind is still a part of us. Because we ARE the object.


In conclusion, the inter mind is not deduced. It is felt.

[GrayArea]

I have talked about the Inter Mind and the Inter Mind Model in several topics and have received replies wanting to know more about these concepts. I have just reviewed the posting rules and it looks like I should be able to post this because people have asked for it. So, it is time to provide a resource where people can find out more about the concept of the Inter Mind and the Inter Mind Model:

https://TheInterMind.com

I hope this will give the background for the Inter Mind Model that people are looking for. I am looking forward to responding to any questions and comments.

I have made the mistake of not quoting you while writing my previous reply, which meant that you did not get a notification for it. Therefore I am quoting you now so that you may check my above reply, because I would like to hear your side of the argument.