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

[psyreporter]

The case of a French man who has just 20% brain tissue and who managed to live an entirely normal life with a wife and two children may provide a clue that the machine theory for the human brain or consciousness may not be valid.

At 44 years age, at a random hospital check, it was discovered that 80% of the brains of the man were missing.

It is important to note that the man was not retarded. He worked as a civil servant.

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... s-doctors/

klein-brein1-300x234.jpg (23.67 KiB) Viewed 2496 times

Plasticity of the brain may be evidence that there is more to life and consciousness than machinery. It would mean that the same is valid for plants.

[Consul]

The case of a French man who has just 20% brain tissue and who managed to live an entirely normal life with a wife and two children may provide a clue that the machine theory for the human brain or consciousness may not be valid.

At 44 years age, at a random hospital check, it was discovered that 80% of the brains of the man were missing.

It is important to note that the man was not retarded. He worked as a civil servant.

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... s-doctors/

What's "the machine theory"?
In order to refute the assumption that consciousness is realized by and in brains (or brain parts), you need to find a conscious person with 0% brain tissue!

[Sculptor1]

The case of a French man who has just 20% brain tissue and who managed to live an entirely normal life with a wife and two children may provide a clue that the machine theory for the human brain or consciousness may not be valid.

At 44 years age, at a random hospital check, it was discovered that 80% of the brains of the man were missing.

It is important to note that the man was not retarded. He worked as a civil servant.

Man with tiny brain shocks doctors
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... s-doctors/


klein-brein1-300x234.jpg


Plasticity of the brain may be evidence that there is more to life and consciousness than machinery. It would mean that the same is valid for plants.

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.

[Sy Borg]

If a plant is a machine, then so are we, in which case everything is a machine, so the notion of living things as machines ultimately lacks meaning. It's a convenient shorthand for predictable processes.

The word "machine" does have the strong connotation "artificial object", so we hesitate to apply it to natural objects.

No we don't. We routinely refer to other beings (not objects!) as "biological machines". Even dogs and other animals were thought of in that way until relatively recently. Even gorillas and chimps were dismissed as unconscious "machines" for a long time, thus giving us an excuse to slaughter them for convenience.

Can you think of a word other than "mechanism" to describe animal and plant behaviours?

[Consul]

…
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 New Scientist article is based on a report in The Lancet, which is a scientific journal, and on an interview with one of its authors:

* Feuillet, Lionel, Henry Dufour, and Jean Pelletier. "Brain of a White-Collar Worker." The Lancet 370 (2007): 262.

By the way, the one-page report in The Lancet doesn't mention any percentage of brain reduction.

[Sculptor1]

…
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 New Scientist article is based on a report in The Lancet, which is a scientific journal, and on an interview with one of its authors:

* Feuillet, Lionel, Henry Dufour, and Jean Pelletier. "Brain of a White-Collar Worker." The Lancet 370 (2007): 262.

By the way, the one-page report in The Lancet doesn't mention any percentage of brain reduction.

It is interesting to note the difference.
Whilst NS claims he had a "perfectly normal life."
The Lancet records intellectual problems "intelligence quotient (IQ) of 75: his verbal IQ was 84, and his performance IQ 70. ", and neurological problems with his legs, requiring stenting.

[Consul]

The word "machine" does have the strong connotation "artificial object", so we hesitate to apply it to natural objects.

No we don't. We routinely refer to other beings (not objects!) as "biological machines". Even dogs and other animals were thought of in that way until relatively recently. Even gorillas and chimps were dismissed as unconscious "machines" for a long time, thus giving us an excuse to slaughter them for convenience.

In the American Heritage Dictionary one meaning of "machine" is "intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body", and in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary one meaning is "living organism or one of its functional systems". So the word can be applied to natural objects as well.

In the pejorative sense, to call an agent a machine is to say that it acts without consciousness and without conscious control or free will, being nothing but a nonconsciously and involuntarily acting automaton or robot.

Can you think of a word other than "mechanism" to describe animal and plant behaviours?

The (causal) mechanisms of behaviour are complex (causal) processes.

[Sy Borg]

No we don't. We routinely refer to other beings (not objects!) as "biological machines". Even dogs and other animals were thought of in that way until relatively recently. Even gorillas and chimps were dismissed as unconscious "machines" for a long time, thus giving us an excuse to slaughter them for convenience.

In the American Heritage Dictionary one meaning of "machine" is "intricate natural system or organism, such as the human body", and in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary one meaning is "living organism or one of its functional systems". So the word can be applied to natural objects as well.

In the pejorative sense, to call an agent a machine is to say that it acts without consciousness and without conscious control or free will, being nothing but a nonconsciously and involuntarily acting automaton or robot.

Can you think of a word other than "mechanism" to describe animal and plant behaviours?

The (causal) mechanisms of behaviour are complex (causal) processes.

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.

Perhaps a more respectful lexicon towards nature is part of the solution to so much of humanity's blind - and self-destructive - ruthlessness towards the natural world? It's one thing to accept that heterotrophic life needs to take energy from other organisms to sustain itself, it's another matter again to objectify the life forms we need to kill.

I appreciate that the gesture is ultimately futile. Machines will proliferate and most plants and animals will become extinct. My approach here is inherently conservative (in the true sense of the word before being muddied by politicking). The pace of change may yet be important, not to mention the basis on which we build our new, artificial man-made world of concrete, bricks, glass and steel. Will the new arcologies be hives of ruthlessness or something more "human"? That may depend on how we treat those who can't defend themselves now.

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.

[psyreporter]

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

[Sy Borg]

The Noah Wall case is interesting. Apparently his brain has grown to be 80% normal size. That, in itself, presents some mysteries.

[psyreporter]

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

Some scientists argue that plants are essentially "slow animals". According to forestry professor Suzanne Simard trees are more like humans than many people think.

The consideration whether plants deserve a similar moral status as animals does not imply that plants would need to be treated the same as animals. It would merely be a basis for further consideration, e.g. to formulate why a basis of respect for plants is applicable or essential.

In the case of professor Suzanne Simard's advocacy for morality in forestry it could imply that humans would be required understand the role and importance of mother trees for the vitality of the forest. Essentially, the denoted morality could create a basis for improved potential for symbiosis between humans and forests, enhancing the relationship between humans and forests and thereby improving the vitality of forests/nature which in turn results in improved potential for humans to prosper into the farther future.

Morality could enhance human's potential to thrive. Carelessness/barbarism does not seem to be intelligent on the longer term. Especially with risks such as exponential growth, morality ("think before you act") may be essential for humanity to survive and prosper.

Plants provide food that is intended to be eaten by animals. Plants are clearly very different from animals, but on a certain level plants may be a lot like animals.

[Pattern-chaser]

The topic simply provides an option to discuss whether plant morality is applicable.

Then what, pray tell, is "plant morality"? No matter how moral questions can be insanely complicated - and they can! - they come down to one thing: right and wrong. Human right and wrong, that is. For, as far as I know, plants - and animals other than humans - do not act rightly or wrongly. Only humans do that, and only humans judge one another on such a basis. So what is the right and wrong that is associated with plants; what is plant morality?

[Pattern-chaser]

Plants provide food that is intended to be eaten by animals.

"Intended"? Intended by whom? God? Animals (other than humans)? Humans? Not plants, for sure!

[psyreporter]

The topic simply provides an option to discuss whether plant morality is applicable.

Then what, pray tell, is "plant morality"? No matter how moral questions can be insanely complicated - and they can! - they come down to one thing: right and wrong. Human right and wrong, that is. For, as far as I know, plants - and animals other than humans - do not act rightly or wrongly. Only humans do that, and only humans judge one another on such a basis. So what is the right and wrong that is associated with plants; what is plant morality?

The denotation of right and wrong is ethics and not morality. One could argue that ethics undermines morality. Morality originates from valuing that precedes the senses. Morality uses theory as a means for reasoning. Ethics originates from theory.

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

Humans poses of the capacity of imagination. Thereby, they can imagine morality on behalf of other species. Philosophy can provide a method by which validity can be tested. Will it be correct? One should investigate to find out. There is no argument to state that it is not possible to discover morality applicable to plants. Plants certainly display moral behaviour, such as the transfer of food to those in need.

How should humans treat and interact with plants? This is ethics.

In the case of professor Suzanne Simard's advocacy for morality in forestry, foresters could still destroy mother trees. It could be considered immoral, but when done according to ethical consideration, it can be considered ethical and serve the human-tree/forest relation.

[psyreporter]

Plants provide food that is intended to be eaten by animals.

"Intended"? Intended by whom? God? Animals (other than humans)? Humans? Not plants, for sure!

Yes, think of fruits and nuts. The following story provides a clear example. A tree and a bird live in symbiosis. The tree provides high nutritive nuts that can only be eaten by the specific bird.

the tree puts all its energy into producing a large, fatty seed with high nutrition in the hopes that nutcrackers will come for a feast.

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