Philosophy Discussion Forums

arjand wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 5:10 am

Consul wrote: ↑May 10th, 2020, 10:10 pm I'd like to see the scientific texts verifying those alleged cases!

I found the following via Google:

Revisiting hydrocephalus as a model to study brain resilience
Later, a young man with macrocephaly was referred to Lorber (Lewin, 1980). Although the man had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honors degree in mathematics, he had “virtually no brain.” Thus, he thought, there should be a tremendous amount of redundancy or spare capacity in the brain. These ideas were shared with scientifical community in a pediatric conference in 1980. Later in the same year, his ideas were published by Roger Levin in Science magazine.

https://rifters.com/real/articles/Olive ... phalus.pdf

The above-linked paper contains a third-hand report of Lewin's second-hand report of Lorber's report, which was never published by him in the form of a scientific paper providing exact empirical data.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 11:01 am I didn't read the whole initial post of this thread, but arjand is referencing a lot of garbage that has long since been debunked.

Indeed, and it has nothing to do with the "hard problem", since nothing arjand has offered in evidence advances either side of the argument because the thread title is BS.

I'd hope that a philosophy board wouldn't devolve into new agey wishful thinking/fantasizing stuff, but we seem to get a fair amount of that.

It's enough of a pain in the butt to deal with the steady stream of "how can I twist this into supporting my religious views" posts that boards like this always get.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 8:58 am

Greta wrote: ↑May 10th, 2020, 7:36 pm
There are no truly unique processes;

We don't at all agree on this. Oh my view, every process, every bit of matter, every relation, and thus every property as well is truly unique. None of it is literally the same as any other process, any other bit of matter, any other relation, any other property.

A recent study suggests that all identical particles in the Universe are entangled by their identical nature. It implies that at least at a certain level, and perhaps outside the scope of time, non-uniqueness is applicable to all particles in the Universe.

Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

Another study showed that particles in any location in the cosmos can be entangled by post-selection which may imply a similar aspect of non-uniqueness.

Pigeon paradox reveals cosmic connections
post-selection should link any two particles every time their quantum properties are measured, no matter where they are in the cosmos. In other words, all particles everywhere could be linked, provided they have been post-selected in some way. “Is that mind-blowing or is that mind-blowing?”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... nnections/

Faustus5 wrote: ↑May 10th, 2020, 11:18 am

Gertie wrote: ↑May 9th, 2020, 10:08 amThe experience's existence is not dependant on describing it to someone else, its reality is known from a 'direct' first person perspective.

But when you are trying to compose a scientifically and philosophically sound THEORY of consciousness, descriptions from subjects and measurements of what goes on in their bodies is literally all you have for data. And all you need to do (as if that was ever easy, ha!) is trace the causal chains between what is happening in their bodies and what leads then to make motor responses about their subjective experiences.

That is all a scientific theory of consciousness needs to do. There is nothing else it could ever do.

As I said, phenomenal conscious experience doesn't look accessible to our current materialist scientific toolkit. Hence we have to rely on reports and studying correlated physical processes. This can give us behavioural and functional descriptions, but struggles to address the underlying explanation. The How and Why. That's why Chalmers talks of The Hard Problem, where-as Dennett hand waves it away. I'm with Chalmers, because

- Not being able to measure a thought, pain, sensation with a consciousness-o-meter does not make experiential states ''illusions''.

- Not understanding the nature of the mind-body relationship does not make experiential states mere symbols without their own particular properties.

- Not understanding something doesn't mean it's not real.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 1:20 pmIndeed, and it has nothing to do with the "hard problem", since nothing arjand has offered in evidence advances either side of the argument because the thread title is BS.

My question in defense has been: what justifies the idea that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain"? This question has not been answered.

What basis could there be for the idea that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain"? As it appears, merely the existence of the mentioned people would retroactively justify the idea. Therefor, the reasoning to attack the claim in the title appears to be invalid.

Why not just shorten the story and admit that a few leftovers are still required to be conscious. What's certain here is that a number of posts on the subject don't require more.

arjand wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 2:39 pmMy question in defense has been: what justifies the idea that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain"? This question has not been answered.
What basis could there be for the idea that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain"? As it appears, merely the existence of the mentioned people would retroactively justify the idea. Therefor, the reasoning to attack the claim in the title appears to be invalid.

Once again: There seems to be no scientific verification of your percentages in terms of precise measurements, with the results published in academic journals.

Anyway, it's not only the volume of the brain that matters with regard to cognitive abilities and consciousness, because, as far as I know, compressed brain tissue can be structurally and functionally equivalent or at least similar to brain tissue with a larger volume.

That there are conscious and (more or less) intelligent people with (more or less) incomplete brains is explainable in terms of the brain's astonishing compensatory neuroplasticity.

QUOTE>
"Neuroplasticity can be seen in various forms at every level of nervous system organization, from the lowest levels of molecular activity and the structure and function of individual cells, through intermediate levels of discrete populations of neurons and widespread neuronal networks, to the highest level of brain-wide systems and behavior. Some occur continuously throughout life, others only at specific periods of life, and different types can be both induced separately and together.

Broadly speaking, there are two main types of neuroplasticity. Functional plasticity involves changes in some physiological aspect of nerve cell function, such as the frequency of nervous impulses or the probability of release of a chemical signal—both of which act to make synaptic connections stronger or weaker—or changes to the degree of synchronicity among populations of cells. Structural plasticity includes volumetric changes in discrete brain regions and the formation of new neural pathways, brought about either by the formation of new nerve fiber branches and synapses or by the growth and addition of new cells.

These different modes of plasticity occur over a wide range of timescales. Modification of synapses can occur on a timescale of milliseconds, synapses and dendrite branches are created or destroyed in the space of several hours, and new cells may be born or killed over periods of days. Other forms of neuroplasticity occur over even longer time frames—for example, brain maturation involves a protracted period of heightened plasticity that persists from late childhood into early adulthood, and losing one’s sense of sight or hearing or sustaining brain damage induces gradual changes that occur in subsequent weeks, months, and years."

(Costandi, Moheb. Neuroplasticity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2016. pp. 11-3)
<QUOTE

arjand wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 2:39 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 1:20 pmIndeed, and it has nothing to do with the "hard problem", since nothing arjand has offered in evidence advances either side of the argument because the thread title is BS.

My question in defense has been: what justifies the idea that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain"? This question has not been answered.

What basis could there be for the idea that 5% brain tissue is to be considered "a brain"? As it appears, merely the existence of the mentioned people would retroactively justify the idea. Therefor, the reasoning to attack the claim in the title appears to be invalid.

Irrelevant

Consul wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 1:02 pm

arjand wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 5:10 am I found the following via Google:

Revisiting hydrocephalus as a model to study brain resilience
Later, a young man with macrocephaly was referred to Lorber (Lewin, 1980). Although the man had an IQ of 126 and had a first class honors degree in mathematics, he had “virtually no brain.” Thus, he thought, there should be a tremendous amount of redundancy or spare capacity in the brain. These ideas were shared with scientifical community in a pediatric conference in 1980. Later in the same year, his ideas were published by Roger Levin in Science magazine.

https://rifters.com/real/articles/Olive ... phalus.pdf

The above-linked paper contains a third-hand report of Lewin's second-hand report of Lorber's report, which was never published by him in the form of a scientific paper providing exact empirical data.

As mentioned, it may require historical research. 1980 was a time before the internet. Perhaps the best results could be achieved by an official BBC or Science reporter because it may involve physically talking with people about an event from more than 40 years ago.

It is likely that the publication in Science in 1980 has resulted in a level of scrutiny which may increase the likeliness to discover leads that can provide answers fast. As it appears, the result of the scrutiny has not reached the internet which could be an indication that historical research was never done and that merely a PDF of an article from 1980, and the personal memory by some people, remains.

The case may be worthy of historical research.

The Rolls quote below contains a reference to a paper published by Lorber:

* Lorber, John. "Is your brain really necessary?" Nursing Mirror 152 (1981): 29–30.

However, strangely, Lorber's two-page paper was published one year after Lewin's three-page report:

* Lewin, Roger. "Is your brain really necessary?" Science 210/4475 (1980): 1232-1234.

QUOTE>
"A major obstacle in this work is the difficulty of obtaining the kind of quantitative data that would be expected in a scientific investigation of, say, rat brains. "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it's clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms," asserts Lorber, "and much of the brain he does have is in the more primitIve deep structures that are relatively spared in hydrocephalus."
Lorber concludes from these observations that "there must be a tremendous amount of redundancy or spare capacity in the brain, just as there is with kidney and liver." He also contends that "the cortex probably is responsible for a great deal less than most people imagine."
(Lewin 1980, pp. 1232-3)

"As to the question "Is your brain really necessary?" Lorber admits that it is only half serious. "You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen," concedes the tactician. Bower's answer to the tongue-in-cheek question is this: "Although Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain, it does show that the brain can work in conditions we would have thought impossible." Bower occasionally complains that Lorber's style is less scientific than it might be. He concedes, however, that "there are still many questions to be answered about the human brain, and it has to be admitted that Lorber's provocative approach does make you think about them.""
(Lewin 1980, p. 1234)
<QUOTE

QUOTE>
"The man with no brain?

Prof John Lorber looked at the brain scan of the student in front of him. The student was studying for a Maths degree and had a recorded IQ of 126 (100 is the average). The student had been referred to Lorber by the university campus doctor who noticed that his head was slightly larger than normal. Knowing Lorber’s research interests into hydrocephalus he thought that the student might be worthy of further investigation. The brain scan showed that the student had practically no brain at all. It was estimated that his brain would have weighed no more than 150 grams, the normal size for a man of his age would be 10 times this at 1.5 kilograms. This, combined with further very rare cases, led Lorber and others to pose the question ‘Is your brain really necessary?’ (1981). Such evidence has questioned our understanding of the workings of the human brain and been cited as evidence to perpetuate the widely held belief that we only use 10 per cent of our brains."
(p. 268)

"John Lorber, a paediatrician and acknowledged expert on Spina Bifida was thrust into this debate after examining a patient referred to him by a GP working on the campus of Sheffield University. Lorber was a surgeon who specialised in the treatment of hydrocephalus. Hydrocephalus comes from the Greek ]hydro, meaning ‘water’, and ‘cephalus’, which means ‘head’. Hydrocephalus involves an abnormally large accumulation of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) within the cavities (ventricles) inside the brain. If the CSF is not absorbed quickly enough, it builds up pressure in the ventricles and this causes the cerebral cortex to be crushed outwards against the skull. Lorber was performing surgery on people with hydrocephalus by inserting valves called ‘shunts’ in order to relieve the pressure caused by the build-up of CSF (Lorber, 1981). Lorber was surprised by a few patients who seemed to have little or no mental deficits but whose brain scans showed extremely enlarged ventricles, such that there was virtually no discernible cerebral cortex at all. His best known case involved a maths undergraduate with an IQ of 126 and who subsequently went on to gain a first class honours degree. Lorber claimed that his cerebral cortex on the scan was a mere millimetre or so thick (crushed by the effects of hydrocephalus) compared to the usual four or five centimetres. Lorber reckoned that his whole brain weighed a mere 150 grams compared to the typical 1.5 kilograms. Lorber subsequently published a paper with the provocative title of ‘Is your brain really necessary?’ questioning the need for areas of the cerebral cortex. On a subsequent television documentary he stated: ‘My hunch is that we all have a substantial reserve of neurons and brain cells . . . that we don’t need and don’t use’ (Beyerstein, 1998). Lorber claimed to have documented about 600 such cases and categorised them into four groups. There were:

(1) those cases with near normal brains;
(2) those with 50–70 per cent normal function;
(3) those with 70–90 per cent normal function; and
(4) those with 95 per cent of the cranium filled with CSF.

There were only about 60 cases of this last group and approximately half of these were profoundly retarded. The other half, which included the aforementioned maths graduate, had IQs above 100. In the past, in children where the skull had not yet calcified, the cranium would often balloon outwards due to the internal pressure. Before the modern technique of a shunt was used, such an affliction was likely to lead to death. So do such case studies suggest that much of the cerebral cortex is redundant or are there alternative explanations?

Conflicting evidence

The first point to be made is that in many of these cases there may have been some exaggeration of the extent of brain loss. Lorber used a CAT (computerized axial tomography) scan technique to view the internal structure of the brain. This is an x-ray procedure that, when combined with a computer, can generate cross-sectional views of the internal organs and structures of the body. It is suggested that a cerebral cortex of only a millimetre or so thick would probably not have shown up clearly on such a scan, suggesting that, in reality, the cortex might have been somewhat larger. Lorber conceded that the reading of CAT scans is difficult but remained convinced that his interpretation of the evidence was correct. More advanced brain scanning techniques have shown that the cerebral cortex is not ‘lost’ or destroyed but compacted into the smaller space available. If anything, this demonstrates the remarkable ability of the brain to adapt to circumstances. This is also supported by studies of neural damage in infants. It is well documented that children can more readily adapt to serious head injuries than adults because of the plasticity and adaptability of the human brain. There are cases of children who have one brain hemisphere surgically removed who have regained, after a period of some adjustment, most of their former abilities including language. This suggests that the remaining areas of the brain have taken over the functions of the removed hemisphere. This ‘crowding’ procedure may have also occurred with the maths graduate case study reported by Lorber.

There have also been question marks over the lack of deficit reported in some of Lorber’s patients, most notably, the maths graduate. Some of the effects of hydrocephalus are quite subtle and are not readily detectable on standard cognition tests such as IQ.

How necessary is our brain?

Despite the Lorber case study, it appears that the cerebral cortex is essential. There are well-documented cases of people suffering extreme cognitive deficits after fairly minor neurological damage. If much of our grey matter was redundant then it would be expected that people could cope quite easily after such brain trauma. In addition, it seems unlikely that natural selection would have resulted in an organ that consumes so much energy for so little return. Other costs of having a large brain (and subsequent large head) concern the greater likelihood of dangerous complications during childbirth. A smaller, more efficient brain that could cope with the same cognitive functions would surely have been advantageous and therefore naturally selected. The fact that we do have a large brain suggests some sort of selective advantage. Redundancy is fine if there are no costs but here the costs of a large brain seem to outweigh the benefits of a small, but more efficient brain.

Modern brain scanning techniques have also shown how much of the brain is used in different activities. They demonstrate that large areas of the brain are used in almost all activities. Even during sleep, that seemingly most passive of activities, the brain is surprisingly active particularly when dreaming. So much so that dream sleep is often referred to as ‘active sleep’.

Before his death in 1996, Lorber, who had a reputation for being deliberately controversial, conceded that he had perhaps over dramatised his evidence, arguing that this needed to be done in order to get people to listen. He believed that far too often results that don’t fit existing explanations are marginalised as ‘anomalous’ results (Lewin, 1980). Lorber continued to argue that there must be some redundancy or spare capacity in the brain in much the same way that there is in the kidney or liver. There is some further experimental evidence from trials on rats to support Lorber’s claims. Rats who have large areas of the cerebral cortex removed in one go seem to suffer from gross dysfunction, but rats who have the same amount of cortex removed in a series of stages can cope remarkably well and show little sign of impairment. This appears to mirror the gradual step-by-step effects of hydrocephalus seen in some of Lorber’s patients. To this day, the idea of spare capacity in the brain remains a controversial and contentious argument, but it seems most likely that reallocation of function is possible, particularly in the developing child’s brain.

Given the evidence, it is certain that the cerebral cortex is necessary and that the claim that we only use 10 per cent of our brain is nothing more than a myth or ‘urban legend’. We can be fairly certain that we use our entire brain all the time. The Lorber case study provides a fascinating peek into the workings of the brain, but rather than providing evidence of its redundancy it provides further evidence of its amazing adaptability and complexity. A complexity that we are only just beginning to comprehend."
(pp. 270-4)

(Rolls, Geoff. Classic Case Studies in Psychology. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2015.)
<QUOTE

Consul wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 4:14 pm Once again: There seems to be no scientific verification of your percentages in terms of precise measurements, with the results published in academic journals.

I found 210 publications from professor John Lorber on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?te ... BAuthor%5D

It appears to be evident that he is a non-controversial specialist.

Based on this information, his statement that the student with an IQ of 126 was estimated to have an amount of brain tissue weighing between 50-150 grams appears to deserve credibility.

"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".

It may also imply something about the case of the French man. It is merely suggested that his brain is compressed. I have seen no evidence for that idea while the expert information from professor John Lorber suggests that brain weight is reduced to 5% of the original weight.

Consul wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 4:14 pm Anyway, it's not only the volume of the brain that matters with regard to cognitive abilities and consciousness, because, as far as I know, compressed brain tissue can be structurally and functionally equivalent or at least similar to brain tissue with a larger volume.

What is the basis for that idea? 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?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 8:58 am

Greta wrote: ↑May 10th, 2020, 7:36 pm
There are no truly unique processes;

We don't at all agree on this. Oh my view, every process, every bit of matter, every relation, and thus every property as well is truly unique. None of it is literally the same as any other process, any other bit of matter, any other relation, any other property.

This doesn't imply that there are no real similarities, but similarities are never literally the same. Numerically distinct matter, relations, processes And properties (so "this" and "that") are never literally shared between the numerically distinct things.

That makes everything truly unique--every bit of matter, every relation, every process, every property is literally, in terms of its extramental existence, the only one of its "kind."

Considering numerically distinct things the same, or the same kind is only a mental abstraction--it's a fiction of sorts, gained by glossing over details and pretending that two or more unique things are instead two instances of just one thing.

So no. There is no property that obtains in one entity that literally also obtains in another.

No, all processes are related to others. If we follow your point to its logical conclusion then there can be no classification of species, types or categories, and so no science is possible. Everything is special, praise de Lord. Not true. The same can be said for consciousness, which is no more unique than digestion

In nature, reality is layered in loose fractals, with dynamics repeating in different ways at different scales. Do you believe that absorption only exists via intestines? Is all filtering limited to kidneys? Is flowing unique to water?

Greta wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 6:22 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑May 11th, 2020, 8:58 am

We don't at all agree on this. Oh my view, every process, every bit of matter, every relation, and thus every property as well is truly unique. None of it is literally the same as any other process, any other bit of matter, any other relation, any other property.

This doesn't imply that there are no real similarities, but similarities are never literally the same. Numerically distinct matter, relations, processes And properties (so "this" and "that") are never literally shared between the numerically distinct things.

That makes everything truly unique--every bit of matter, every relation, every process, every property is literally, in terms of its extramental existence, the only one of its "kind."

Considering numerically distinct things the same, or the same kind is only a mental abstraction--it's a fiction of sorts, gained by glossing over details and pretending that two or more unique things are instead two instances of just one thing.

So no. There is no property that obtains in one entity that literally also obtains in another.

No, all processes are related to others. If we follow your point to its logical conclusion then there can be no classification of species, types or categories, and so no science is possible.

The way that there are species, etc. is something you quoted above:

"Considering numerically distinct things the same, or the same kind is only a mental abstraction--it's a fiction of sorts, gained by glossing over details and pretending that two or more unique things are instead two instances of just one thing."

Types are abstractions. Abstractions are mental events (and particular mental events at that.)

In nature, reality is layered in loose fractals,

Oy vey. And the evidence for this is?

Do you believe that absorption only exists via intestines? Is all filtering limited to kidneys? Is flowing unique to water?

Different things don't have the same properties just because you've formulated an abstraction that considers them the same.