Philosophy Discussion Forums

arjand wrote: ↑May 7th, 2020, 3:55 pm Many people are convinced that consciousness originates in the brain and that human emotions, behaviors and thoughts correlate with brain states.

Daniel Dennett, the high-profile atheist and philosophy professor at Tufts University outside Boston, argues that consciousness, as we think of it, is an illusion: there just isn’t anything in addition to the spongy stuff of the brain, and that spongy stuff doesn’t actually give rise to something called consciousness. However hard it feels to accept, we should concede that consciousness is just the physical brain, doing what brains do.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 03633-1_11

There are many people without a brain that are conscious and capable of living a normal human life. This topic is intended to discuss the implications for theories of consciousness.

An example case is that of a French man who has just 10% brain tissue. At 44 years age, at a random hospital check, it was discovered that 90% of his brains were missing. The man is married, has two children and works as a civil servant.


klein-brein1-300x234.jpg


(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"

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who- ... sciousness

(2007) Man with tiny brain shocks doctors (first publication)
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... s-doctors/

Some have argued, based on the fact that the publication of the case in The Lancet did not mention the percentage of brain tissue that was missing, that the brain is merely compressed.

(2018) So his brain’s just squished (rather than only 10% there): A Bonsai Brain
https://www.untrammeledmind.com/2018/02 ... ai-brains/

90% compression potential for a brain does not seem plausible. The research by pediatrics professor John Lorber, a specialist, indicates that brain weight is reduced to grams compared to the default 1.5 kg, which implies that brain tissue is actually missing. That it is actually the case, is evident from the notion that holding a light besides the head of the children will light up their skull.

Children with hydranencephaly are essentially missing every part of their brain except for the brain stem and cerebellum and a few other structures. Holding a light near such a child's head illuminates the skull like a jack-o'-lantern.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ple-brain/

Professor John Lorber studied hundreds of cases including that of a student with an IQ of 126.

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.

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".

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

Note: the case about a student with an IQ of 126 was apparently never published @Consul.

(1980) Professor Lorber: Is Your Brain Really Necessary?
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/210/4475/1232

There are many similar cases:

(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

(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

Questions:

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?

If you want to use your exaggerated post title accurately, post back when you find a guy with 0% of a brain.

Faustus5 wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 1:07 pm

Atla wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 12:10 pmIt's simply intellectual dishonesty from Dennett to redefine the word to mean something else, and then make the sensational statement that he has explained consciousness.

Sometimes you want to say, "It turns out X isn't what we commonly took it to be, it is really more like Y, and here''s why".

Or you can say "It turns out we thought X existed, but it doesn't really, here's why".

There's a Venn diagram where those two tactics overlap. I think Dennett is in that zone.

Yeah, but he only discusses his definition of consciousness that way. Many people, including me, would agree with such views after half a page. We already know those things from science, psychology etc.

What he doesn't do is address phenomenal consciousness itself. He doesn't even think that there's anything more to address. (I like how many people are calling his book "Consciousness explained away" hehe.)

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 7:45 pmIf you want to use your exaggerated post title accurately, post back when you find a guy with 0% of a brain.

The topic addresses the fact that many people are convinced that consciousness originates in the brain and that human emotions, behaviors and thoughts correlate with brain states. As an example, the science psychiatry (fixed state brain treatment) is based on the idea.

Do you find it logical to consider that 10% of brain tissue still counts as "a brain"?

For many people, the idea that "a tiny fraction of a brain" is coherent with a functioning brain is not valid. Therefor, to address the issue correctly, the title "Consciousness without a brain?" is most applicable.

When it is established that people can live with merely 5% of brain tissue, such as the student with an IQ of 126, then still at question would be whether it is valid to consider that they have "a brain". What exactly does it mean to have "a brain"? This question would be new, therefor it would not have been valid to start with the assumption that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain".

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 7:22 pm 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. 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.

Professor John Lorber (cited in the OP) mentioned the following in his study of 600 cases:

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.

~10% of 600 cases is 60 cases which means that in his study ~30 people with merely 5% brain tissue had an IQ of over 100.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 7:22 pm Secondly, on the basis that the French man does have a brain, no matter how damaged it might be. This is not the same as not having any brain, as you had suggested.

As mentioned in my reply to LuckyR, the topic addresses the fact that many people are convinced that consciousness originates in the brain and that human emotions, behaviors and thoughts correlate with brain states. For many people, the idea that "a tiny fraction of a brain" is coherent with a functioning brain (i.e. "a brain") is not valid.

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 7:22 pmThird, because the article you submitted clearly states that:

"Update 3 Jan 2017: 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."

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?

Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 7:22 pm 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".

With regard to consciousness to be generated by the brain. Perhaps the cases would be a unique opportunity to locate the exact origin or mechanism in the brain since just a few parts are left that could be a candidate for a origin.

Still, at question would be, how would that 10% part of the brain enable a human to perform as a normal human? The French man had reached 44 years of age and became a father of two children and held a job.

"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" (ScienceAlert)

arjand wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 3:05 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 7:45 pmIf you want to use your exaggerated post title accurately, post back when you find a guy with 0% of a brain.

The topic addresses the fact that many people are convinced that consciousness originates in the brain and that human emotions, behaviors and thoughts correlate with brain states. As an example, the science psychiatry (fixed state brain treatment) is based on the idea.

Do you find it logical to consider that 10% of brain tissue still counts as "a brain"?

For many people, the idea that "a tiny fraction of a brain" is coherent with a functioning brain is not valid. Therefor, to address the issue correctly, the title "Consciousness without a brain?" is most applicable.

When it is established that people can live with merely 5% of brain tissue, such as the student with an IQ of 126, then still at question would be whether it is valid to consider that they have "a brain". What exactly does it mean to have "a brain"? This question would be new, therefor it would not have been valid to start with the assumption that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain".

Let's pretend you find a fully functional person with 0% of a brain, which of course you haven't/can't. What is the source of the never-seen fully functional guy-with-zero-brain's consciousness?

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?

Steve3007 wrote:This isn't an example of consciousness without a brain. It's an example of consciousness with most of the brain missing. A critical difference....

arjand wrote:When one considers a human to have "a brain", could that include 10% brain tissue in a context in which it was not intended?

Steve3007 wrote:Intended? By whom?

arjand wrote:As intended by the physiology of the human.

Steve3007 wrote:Ok. I didn't realize that a physiology could have intentions.

Terrapin Station wrote:The brain('s functions) are definitely a part of human physiology. And that's where intentions occur.

Oy vey.

I think, as a rule, the only way to be understood in this forum is to make every post self-contained and forget any notion of building mutual understanding from one post to the next. i.e. don't assume you're having a conversation. You're not.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 6:02 am

Steve3007 wrote:This isn't an example of consciousness without a brain. It's an example of consciousness with most of the brain missing. A critical difference....

arjand wrote:When one considers a human to have "a brain", could that include 10% brain tissue in a context in which it was not intended?

Steve3007 wrote:Intended? By whom?

arjand wrote:As intended by the physiology of the human.

Steve3007 wrote:Ok. I didn't realize that a physiology could have intentions.

Terrapin Station wrote:The brain('s functions) are definitely a part of human physiology. And that's where intentions occur.

Oy vey.

When genetic information or biochemistry is set to achieve a certain "end result" which amounts to human physiology, would the term "intended result" not be applicable?

Atla wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 11:42 pmWhat he doesn't do is address phenomenal consciousness itself. He doesn't even think that there's anything more to address. (I like how many people are calling his book "Consciousness explained away" hehe.)

He addresses phenomenal consciousness alright, to the extent that the concept is even intelligible, just not the way you like.

Gertie wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 6:43 pmThat's still slippery imo, because it's not just that we 'describe' a conscious experience, it exists regardless of whether we describe it.

His position is that the task of explaining consciousness is merely to explain how people come to have the beliefs that they do regarding their inner experiences. So our descriptions of what it is like to have an experience are the only raw data we have to work with. Well, not the only--button presses, brain scans, pulse rates and the like can also be added to the ledger. I should maybe open up a page on the chapter where he talks about the heterphenomenological method in Consciousness Explained.

Gertie wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 6:43 pmAnd it's not 'in much the same way' as an icon of a file 'represents' the physical processes. The file icon is a symbol, mental experiences are things in themselves with their own specific types of properties.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I really think he's right here, and that mental states and experiences are genuinely symbolic and representative in nature.

arjand wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 5:35 amIt 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?

There is a relevant general question: How much, how many parts of an X can be removed from it without thereby destroying it completely as an X, such that there is no longer an X left?

How incomplete can a brain be or become and still continue to exist as a brain? A single brain cell can hardly be called a brain, can it?
What is certain is that not to have a 100% complete or whole brain is not to have no brain.

Faustus5 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 7:28 am

Atla wrote: ↑May 8th, 2020, 11:42 pmWhat he doesn't do is address phenomenal consciousness itself. He doesn't even think that there's anything more to address. (I like how many people are calling his book "Consciousness explained away" hehe.)

He addresses phenomenal consciousness alright, to the extent that the concept is even intelligible, just not the way you like.

I think that's simply a lie. He never addressed why there are any experiences in the first place. Dismissing them as illusions also doesn't work because illusions are also experiences.

Faustus

Welcome to the board by-the-way

Gertie wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:43 pm
That's still slippery imo, because it's not just that we 'describe' a conscious experience, it exists regardless of whether we describe it.

His position is that the task of explaining consciousness is merely to explain how people come to have the beliefs that they do regarding their inner experiences. So our descriptions of what it is like to have an experience are the only raw data we have to work with.

And my position is that I have the experience of a pain in my toe whether or not I then go to see a doctor who asks me to describe that pain. The experience's existence is not dependant on describing it to someone else, its reality is known from a 'direct' first person perspective.

Well, not the only--button presses, brain scans, pulse rates and the like can also be added to the ledger. I should maybe open up a page on the chapter where he talks about the heterphenomenological method in Consciousness Explained.

The problem is that brain scans etc are measuring correlated physical processes, but we don't know the nature of the correlation.

To privilege this over direct experience because it's inherently private and therefore isn't readily amenable to our usual shared/public/observable/measurable materialist methodologies, and then calling directly known experiential states an 'illusion', is **** backwards. It's saying that if a phenomenon isn't apparently amenable to our current materialist scientific method, then trust the method rather than what you directly know to exist. Akin to trying to cram a square peg into a comfortably familiar round hole, by claiming the corners are illusions.

Or, we can say this looks like a problem which presents a novel challenge where our reliable old scientific toolkit might not be up to the task. I'm with Chalmers on that.


I'm happy to give any link you think helpful a go, but I find Dennett frustrating to read and hopeless at constructing a coherent case for his flashy claims.

Gertie wrote: ↑
Yesterday, 6:43 pm
And it's not 'in much the same way' as an icon of a file 'represents' the physical processes. The file icon is a symbol, mental experiences are things in themselves with their own specific types of properties.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I really think he's right here, and that mental states and experiences are genuinely symbolic and representative in nature.

Well, those words can be used in different ways. We can functionally frame experiential states as representations of physical sensory processes for example. Photons hitting the retina, which cause a network of neural processes somehow resulting in me experiencing an image of a red apple. It wouldn't be controversial to frame that experience of seeing a red apple as a symbolic representation of the world I'm interacting with. Or even a symbolic representaion of that entire physical interactive process. Because we have discovered a correlation.

But that doesn't make the experience of seeing a red apple in itself any less real. With its own particular properties which aren't accounted for in a simultaneous physical description. I don't see how a picture of a file on a screen is comparable.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 6:04 am I think, as a rule, the only way to be understood in this forum is to make every post self-contained and forget any notion of building mutual understanding from one post to the next. i.e. don't assume you're having a conversation. You're not.

There's no way I'm about to start reading every post on the board, or even every post in a thread I'm responding to, especially given the rambling, sometimes barely-coherent logorrhea that many folks are prone to.

In general, one shouldn't assume that I've read anything other than what I've quoted.