A question regarding proof

[Fred]

Fred referenced this case many posts ago. I'm surprised if you don't recall that Rhythm.

2nd paragraph: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/210/44...xtract.jpg

It appears that with very little brain, humans can divert functions to what little resources there are.

A case of no brain at all?:

One related case that has received more exposure than most is that of Andrew Vandal, who was born on 12th July 1984. In the early stages of his development in the womb a cyst appeared on the stem of his brain. Known as an atelencephic aprosencephaly, this destructive event left the boy with a cranium containing nothing but fluid. In some cases, it can even leave victims with no detectible brain at all - a condition known as anencephaly or 'brainlessness'.
Cases like Andrew's are again usually terminated before birth, but in this instance the subject was born and then put up for adoption. He was adopted by a paediatric nurse, Kaye Vandal, from Wallingford, Connecticut, US, who, when last asked about Andrew's welfare, stated that she remained devoted to 'giving him the best quality life for however long he lives.'
At the same time, Kaye stated that, against doctors' predictions, Andrew was able to laugh, giggle and smile and, has a 'glowing, outgoing, bubbly personality'. Kaye also stated that her young charge was able to respond to stimulus and was maturing mentally; both of which doctors believed to be impossible, considering his complete absence of brain matter.
Andrew was, however, unable to speak, and was cortically blind; that is, he could see images, but was unable unable to interpret them. Andrew was also incapable of walking, but did manage to drag himself along on his back.

source

Yeah, that's the article, but here's the part I was talking about:

. . . remarkable research conducted at the University of Sheffield by neurology professor the late Dr. John Lorber.

When Sheffield’s campus doctor was treating one of the mathematics students for a minor ailment, he noticed that the student’s head was a little larger than normal. The doctor referred the student to professor Lorber for further examination.

The student in question was academically bright, had a reported IQ of 126 and was expected to graduate. When he was examined by CAT-scan, however, Lorber discovered that he had virtually no brain at all. Instead of two hemispheres filling the cranial cavity, some 4.5 centimetres deep, the student had less than 1 millimetre of cerebral tissue covering the top of his spinal column. The student was suffering from hydrocephalus . . . Normally, the condition is fatal in the first months of childhood. Even where an individual survives he or she is usually seriously handicapped. Somehow, though, the Sheffield student had lived a perfectly normal life and went on to gain an honours degree in mathematics"

Is there anyone out there willing to take a shot at explaining this phenomenon in "it's merely" terms?

[The Grand Nudger]

Virtually no brain at all, and no brain, are fantastically different things aren't they? So, what little brain these people had worked for them, fantastic, a brilliant story of succeeding in the face of adversity.

However. Does this negate the larger body of research? No, it does not. One expects to find statistical outliers. People with "normal sized" brains can be clinically retarded. If brain size where the only determining factor in intelligence then sperm whales would be much smarter than ourselves wouldn't they. These articles do not mention whether or not any tests were run to determine if some other organ were functioning as his brain (something had to have been controlling his bodily functions). Case in point it appears that the gentleman with the "nonexistent brain" was severely disabled while the man with the very small brain was functional. Ants have brains which are of course much smaller, even if you were to add the weight of every brain of every ant in the colony it would likely still be smaller than our own. They are nonetheless capable of complex and organized behaviour. What I see here is yet more evidence that the functionality and ability of the brain is not yet completely understood, and that we are capable of operating with much less than we normally possess. Probably plenty more that these sorts of things have to teach us. I don't feel (obviously as a layperson) that this gives us reason to signifacntly alter what we understand to be the mechanisms of the brain (though it obviously speaks volumes about the tolerance for defect), and apparently neither does the field of nueroscience, who remain steadfast in the conviction that the mind is a product of the brain. Now, if you wanted an in depth explanation of any of this, you should probably contact someone who is a specialist in the field.

I could add yet another article
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290610,00.html
(and it's from fox news, so you know it isn't any of my liberal atheist bullshit Frodo..lol)

Do I get a star?

[Fred]

I can't fault with anything you've said. But I must add that in future technology, we could very well trigger a thought in the brain, the kind that, given an electric impulse to neurons ABC,PQR, XYZ, etc. and presto, you see yourself flying to Alpha Centauri. My guess is that a lot of people would pay good money to experience that. Are we that far from such technology? Who knows, but the point is that the possibility of relating brain activity with its content might be just one step away from us.

There's no arguing any of this, but the very same thing could be said for future technology that can locate the flying teapot with the unicorn inside. It's promissory materialism. One day we will know is akin to take it on faith. I'm not denying that it could be true, because one day we're going to know stuff that makes us right now seem like the goat herders the atheists mock.

I'm not in any way saying that objective science is wrong, just that it's only half the story when it comes to evidence. This is one of the most puzzling enigmas. It's often said that someone knows something in theory but not in practice, but the materialists have managed to turn this on their heads because on this score they know it in practice, but not in theory. If you don't believe me, ask them about this pony that's running around. In practice, they get the drill perfectly, but in theory, they are completely stumped as to what the problem is.

[fr0d0]

These articles do not mention whether or not any tests were run to determine if some other organ were functioning as his brain

So now the mind can be something other than the brain? Maybe it was the penis (second brain)? Women wouldn't be so lucky!

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that didn't get far.

"David Bowsher, professor of neurophysiology at Liverpool said "Lorber's work doesn't demonstrate that we don't need a brain", and neurosurgeon Kenneth Till said that Lorber is "overdramatic when he says that someone has 'virtually no brain.'" Lorber admitted it later, saying that he "was only half serious", but defends himself with: "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.". In his later years Lorber expressed great sorrow that more attention had not been paid to his sensational findings"

Amusingly upon loading the article you provided in my PDF viewer and enlarging it....the article itself actually contains within it most of the criticism above. So, in this case you've "merely" seen what you wanted in an article (the flashy headline tags) and ignored the meat of the article itself. The most important part of any piece of literature on science...is the criticism. That's how science gets so much done. It's a pitiless process in which careers are made and broken by aggressive skepticism.

(My comment about the brain was meant to be sarcastic and just going with it as thought it were completely true, as it turns out, it doesn't appear that it was. Maybe I should pass this along to snopes?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lorber

More links for those interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroprosthetics
(Shades of Johnny Mnemonic)

Did that turn out the way you saw it going down in your mind Frodo? You wouldn't believe all the crazy ass shit that I found this article being leveraged as support for btw..morphic resonance of past lives, etc.

[fr0d0]

I was wide open to anything Rhythm. See my comment sourcing it for you for my own conclusion.

[popeyespappy]

Virtually no brain at all, and no brain, are fantastically different things aren't they? So, what little brain these people had worked for them, fantastic, a brilliant story of succeeding in the face of adversity.

Much of this was recently discussed in the mind/brain thread.

And sometimes the show much go on anyway, even if the brain is mostly not there: http://bit.ly/dVIUn

I’d be interested in knowing more about the histological structure of Dr. Lorber’s student's brain and others that exhibit the same physical abnormalities yet retain normal functionality. Hydrocephalus affects the white matter of the brain a lot more than it does the gray matter. If the basic structure of the nerve cells that make up our neural net remain relatively intact despite what for all outward appearances to be a severe deformation it could explain the normal functionality.

http://www.psych.ufl.edu/~steh/PSB6087/b...essary.pdf

I’d also like to know a lot more detail about what Lorber considers normal functionality. The student’s ability to obtain a mathematics degree doesn’t really speak to other possible cognitive problems.

[Ryft]

I dismiss arguments for which there is insufficient evidence.

What about arguments for which there is zero evidence? You likewise dismiss those, right?

Well, apparently not. It seems you are willing to accept things for which there is either insufficient or zero evidence. Unless they are theistic arguments, of course. You consistently dismiss those. But if they are atheistic, then you would just as soon accept them as dismiss them; what the criteria might be for acceptance or dismissal is anyone's guess, but there it is. On what basis do I say this? The fact that you accept any number of things for which there is insufficient evidence (e.g., that induction is a valid epistemic principle) or zero evidence (e.g., that mind states are a product of brain states).

Yes, there is a clear relationship between brain and mind states. But what is that relationship? Causal, you say. Moreover, you even specify the direction of that cause-and-effect relationship, that it is brain states which cause mind states. On what evidence do you draw this conclusion? The embarrassing answer: "none." You base it on the fact that we consistently observe brain states occurring in correlation with mind states. The critical skeptic should recognize that immediately as the fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, which frankly does not qualify as evidence. (While causation obviously implies correlation necessarily, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. One can think of a hundred examples of A occurring in correlation to B but having no causal relationship.) The fact that it is a fallacy is not the only reason it does not qualify as evidence. There is an even clearer reason still. Even cases where correlation might be said to imply causation (such as our present case), such a conclusion is drawn from inference, not observation. It is the correlation that is observed empirically, while the causal relationship is inferred inductively. Causation requires not only correlation but counterfactual dependence—which is empirically impossible (since we do not have time machines). So not only is there no evidence for this causal relationship, there cannot even be any. What we have evidence for, and lots of it, is correlation. Worse still, since induction suffers from vicious circularity—for induction cannot be justified except inductively—even your inferred causal relationship stands on rather questionable ground.

First, it fails the test of logic. Second, it is a product of inference, not observation. Third, that inference itself is based on a viciously circular epistemic principle. Despite all of this, you accept the argument. (I am ignoring the fact that metaphysical naturalism being true is a self-referentially incoherent position.)

That the mind (and the effects thereof) is directly related to the brain has been demonstrated as much as anything could be demonstrated.

Indeed, the correlation is amply attested by empirical observations. But that is not the question.

That thought is "simply" electrical impulse ... is perhaps a very narrow way of describing it, but what other evidence do we have?

You do not even have evidence for that.

I'm going to side with whatever currently accepted theory science has to offer.

The causal relationship is not falsifiable even in principle, so it fails the science test. This is philosophy, Rhythm, not science.

I'm here more to repeat ... to Fred that if he wishes to state something as existing, or being a part of reality, he's going to have to show some sort of evidence for it.

Why must he do that? If no evidence for the existence of X is provided, then X does not exist? Surely you would not posit something that naive. If no evidence for the existence of X is provided, then you will have no reason to believe X exists? Surely you are not a solipsist; that is, what relevance does your intellectual assent have to the existence of X? Perhaps you have presumed that Fred is supposed to care whether or not you happen to give your intellectual assent to the existence of X. Is that it? These are rhetorical questions, of course, intended to make you stop and think for a brief moment. You really need to set aside your self-stultifying scientism and its handy tropes just long enough to genuinely hear what Fred is underscoring.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fortunately we have many such examples, and this has of course been a productive area of nueroscience. We've even had an example of such experiments recently discussed on this forum of how changes in environment, (even without physically jacking with the brain) can cause changes in self (measured by observations of behaviour and activity) in the case of monkeys, rape benches, and the "pit of despair". That there is a direct relationship between the material and the mind is documented extremely well. Examples of the "mind" altering material reality are not so well demonstrated.

Love it when I get to quote myself. I'll add:
lobotomy, hallucinogens, mood altering pharmecueticals, disease (say, schizophrenia), traumatic head injuries resulting in temporary or permanent amnesia, the effects of asphyxiation, dehydration, and of course lets not forget death. Each one an example of how something that affects the brain leads to an effect of the mind.

Now, I've made my claim in the quote above, perhaps you'll suggest something to the contrary, any "mind over matter" you'd like us to consider Ryft?

So, we watch a brain light up in response to stimulus, what's going on Ryft? What we observe or "the great unknown"?

Not falsifiable even in principle, shenanigans. Lets see if someone can will themselves into the effects of a lobotomy without actually undergoing one. Is there anything you don't believe philosophy to be the appropriate tool for?

Why must he do that? Because that's how science is done. It's called the scientific method, it replaced philosophy in such matters right around 100 years ago. Not everything that can be imagined can be said to exist. A great many things exist that we have not yet discovered, but without evidence any claim to knowledge (including knowledge of existence) about such things is unacceptable. We can speculate on what may exist, but we cannot confidently claim that it does with nothing to substantiate it. If we have one claim that is substantiated by an argument and another which is substantiated by an argument, observations, predictions, results, and reproducibility....they are not on equal terms.

There is no area of science that is built on unfalsifiable claims Ryft. That would, by definition, not be science. Nueroscience is not a faith based position.

[Fred]

I would agree with that to a certain extent, I think we will in time have a better understanding of mind, but I believe the materialist view will be jettisoned as our understanding of reality grows, I agree with the famous quote "scientists finally reach the top of the mountain to find theologians sitting there saying "what took you so long to get here!""

What added value is there by crowbaring in supernatural elements.

None. But I don't see anyone seeking to do so. What do you see that appears to be supernatural in essence and why?

You acknowlege that the the electrical and chemical elements happen.

Of course, because they do happen.

The new neural pathways that make new memories can be observed.

Yes.

That these chemicals and electrical interactions make up the mind is not really in doubt.

This seems to be the accepted view, but the idea that mind is matter has been challenged and those challenges haven't been answered. At best, it's a case of "we don't know yet." That's hardly the same as it not being in doubt.

Just becasue you cant imagine how does not make it not so.

Nobody can imagine how it is so because at present, nobody knows. That's why it's called the hard problem of consciousness, and not one of the easy ones. (Of course, those "easy" ones are actually quite complex, but they can be safely tucked into the "one day we will know" slot because they are theoretically solvable within the current parameters of neuroscience. But the hard problem of why consciousness happens at all is not.

"It is widely believed that physics provides a complete catalogue of the universe's fundamental features and laws. As physicist Steven Weinberg puts it in his 1992 book Dreams of a Final Theory, the goal of physics is a "theory of everything" from which all there is to know about the universe can be derived. But Weinberg concedes that there is a problem with consciousness. Despite the power of physical theory, the existence of consciousness does not seem to be derivable from physical laws. He defends physics by arguing that it might eventually explain what he calls the objective correlates of consciousness (that is, the neural correlates), but of course to do this is not to explain consciousness itself. If the existence of consciousness cannot be derived from physical laws, a theory of physics is not a true theory of everything. So a final theory must contain an additional fundamental component." --David Chalmers

"To explain experience, we need a new approach. The usual explanatory methods of cognitive science and neuroscience do not suffice. These methods have been developed precisely to explain the performance of cognitive functions, and they do a good job of it. But as these methods stand, they are only equipped to explain the performance of functions. When it comes to the hard problem, the standard approach has nothing to say." --David Chalmers

Note that he is not in any way saying that neuroscience is wrong, as he is a staunch supporter of it. He's saying that on the hard problem of why conscious experience arises as conscious experience, the standard model has nothing to say, meaning it hasn't even touched upon the question, let alone answered it.

As our understanding of reality grows so the idea of the supernatural becomes increasingly irrelevant.

True, but our understanding of what is natural expands. A description what was going on on the quantum level would have been seen as absolute batshit crazy supernatural bullshit if someone had been spouting it 50 years before it's discovery. Now, well, naturally, that's the way things operate.

The transition from GTFOoH to Well, Duh, isn't immediate or smooth, but it happens nonetheless. The notion of the primacy of consciousness has absolutely nothing supernatural in it. It's saying that consciousness is a fundamental feature of the universe, and it's hard to get more natural than that, wouldn't you say?

Brian Greene on a discussion with John Wheeler:

"During a lunch we had at Princeton in 1998, I asked [John Wheeler, one of the twentieth -century physics' most celebrated thinkers] what he thought the dominant theme in physics would be in the decades going forward. . . He then slowly looked up and said a single word: 'information'....

"Traditionally, physics focuses on things--planets, rocks, atoms, particles, fields--and investigates the forces that affect their behavior and govern their interactions. Wheeler was suggesting that things--matter and radiation--should be viewed as secondary, as carriers of a more abstract and fundamental entity: information. It's not that matter and radiation were somehow illusory; rather, he argued that they should be viewed as the material manifestations of something more basic. He believed that information--where a particle is, whether it is spinning one way or another, whether its charge is positive or negative, and so on--forms an irreducible kernel at the heart of reality. That such information is instantiated in real particles, occupying real positions, having definite spins and charges, is something like an architect's drawings being realized as a skyscraper. The fundamental information is in the blueprints. The skyscraper is but a physical realization of the information contained in the architect's design.

"From this perspective, the universe can be thought of as an information processor. It takes information regarding how things are now and produces information delineating how things will be at the next now, and the now after that. Our senses become aware of such processing by detecting how the physical environment changes over time. But the physical environment itself is emergent; it arises from the fundamental ingredient, information, and evolves according to the fundamental rules, the laws of physics."

See? It's not about adding anything supernatural, it's about recalibrating what is natural in order to account for what is already fundamentally present.