2011/10/13 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > On Oct 13, 11:04 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:52 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1676 > > > > > > > "As stated above, blindsight is seen clinically as a contrast > between > > > > > a lack of declarative knowledge about a stimulus and a high rate of > > > > > correct answers to questions about the stimulus (1). People > suffering > > > > > from blindsight claim to see nothing, and are therefore unable to > > > > > reach spontaneously for stimuli, cannot decide whether or not > stimuli > > > > > are present, and do not know what objects look like. In this sense, > > > > > they are blind. However, they are able to give correct answers when > > > > > asked to decide between given alternatives (1). Studies done with > > > > > subjects that exhibit blindsight have shown that they are able to > > > > > guess reliably only about certain features of stimuli having to do > > > > > with motion, location and direction of stimuli. They are also able > to > > > > > discriminate simple forms, and can shape their hands in a way > > > > > appropriate to grasping the object when asked to try. Some may show > > > > > color discrimination as well (2). Subjects also show visual > > > > > capacities, including reflexes (e.g. the pupil reacts to changes in > > > > > light), implicit reactions and voluntary responses (3). " > > > > > > > Sounds like absent qualia to me. > > > > > > > "people suffering from blindsight claim to see nothing" > > > > > > > So Stathis, Jason, Bruno... how do you know that your computer > brain > > > > > doesn't have blindsight if it's eyes seem to work? Is it lying when > it > > > > > says it can't see, or is it seeing without being able to look at > what > > > > > it is seeing? > > > > > > It seems blindsight is the result of some modules receiving visual > > > > information but not all the modules which would normally receive it. > > > > > > In any event, one with blind sight is not functionally equivalent to > a > > > > normally sighted person. > > > > > It doesn't matter whether they are functionally equivalent. The point > > > is that the function of sight is in some ways independent from the > > > qulaia of visual perception. > > > > I don't think you have established this. See below. > > > > > This is the big deal about absent qualia, > > > that it would be too crazy if we could somehow see without seeing, yet > > > this is evidence of just that. > > > > All we learn when we interview someone is what level of access their > verbal > > center of the brain has to other perceptual functions > > I think it's too simplistic to talk about a verbal center acting on > it's own. There is no suggestion that a sightblind patient has been > reduced to a talking parrot by their condition. We have no reason to > doubt the authenticity of the condition that they describe. If there > were no such condition, that would tend to support functionalism, so > even the existence of reports of sightblindness are somewhat > contrafactual for functionalism. > > > of the brain. > > Therefore we cannot use the claim of blindness to assert that no > processes > > in the person's brain are receiving processed visual information. > > There is no question that parts of the brain are making sense of > optical experiences through the eyes but there is no reason to assume > that it is processed as visual qualia. > > For > > instance, a person with blind sight might still be able to catch a thrown > > ball, because the motor section of the brain is receiving visual > > information. > > There is no such thing as information. It is only the subjective > capacity to be informed. To talk about visual information without a > subjective experience is like saying that your video card could be > watching a movie. > > Likewise, someone with Anton's syndrome may have the opposite > > defect in wiring, where the verbal center of the brain does receive > visual > > information, but the parts of the brain that integrates it to control > motion > > and reflexes do not. > > > > > It is not necessary for any of the > > > qualia of vision to be present to achieve some of the functional > > > benefit of sight. > > > > This is somewhat of a leap. > > Why? If we believe the reports of blindsight, what other conclusion > can we make? > > > > > > Qualia may or may not assist us functionally at all. > > > > Replace qualia with "awareness of information", and you can see how > > necessary it is for certain processes to be aware of some piece of > > information in order to function properly. > > Qualia is not awareness of information. We are informed by qualia, but > we can be informed more effectively through unconscious processes. > Replace information with experiences instead. > > > > > > Blindsight shows the potential from an unconscious form of vision to > > > develop in the same way that our digestion or immune system operates > > > within a complex, survival intensive environment without conjuring up > > > a world of top-level qualia with voluntary control. > > > > I think your conclusion from the phenomenon of blindsight is premature. > > Imagine a coinjoined twin who just had one very big head and two brains. > > One brain controlled walking and received input from the eyes, the other > > brain received input from the ears and controlled talking. What could > you > > conclude from this twin's insistence that it was unable to see? > > I conclude that the blind twin is telling the truth. It's no different > than a passenger in a car asserting that they aren't driving. > > > > > > > > > > > If a robot does things that only something that can see can do, then > > > > there must be something within it that sees. > > > > > Not at all. I can make a ventriloquist dummy respond to things that > > > only something can see can do but there is nothing within it that > > > sees. > > > > You are not considering the whole system, which includes both the > > ventriloquist dummy and the ventriloquist. Obviously there is something > in > > that system which sees (the ventriloquist). Take the ventrioliquist away > > and the dummy can no longer behave as if it sees. This example only > > confirms my original statement. > > Your argument is that if something acts like it sees then that means > that thing must see. If you acknowledge that a dummy can't see then > why not extend the same logic to a computer? The programmer is the > ventriloquist who has recorded his act in advance so that a switching > system routes inputs with recorded outputs. > > You insist to compare a computation with a record when it's absolutely not the same thing, likewise you insist about the fact that a program can't show unexpected novelty and you're proven wrong... so instead of parroting those false facts could you just take that in account ?
> > > > > > That some person maintains they cannot see is not proof that nothing > > > > in their head is seeing. > > > > > I agree. That's why my idea is that all cells potentially 'see' to > > > some extent, it's just our top level brain-scale sight which sees in a > > > human visual experience which is relevant to the world in which our > > > body functions as a single entity. > > > > What's the point of the brain if nerve cells can simply sense what all > the > > other cells want to do and respond appropriately? > > The point is to have a deeper cache of sensorimotive experiences to > draw from and enjoy. Some species liked swimming fast, ours liked > playing with memories. Lots of organisms survive as well as we do > without having developed a brain..worms, plankton, etc. > > Craig > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Consider split brain patients, when you hold > > > > a conversation with a split brain patient, which hemisphere are you > > > > talking to? What might the other hemisphere be aware of that the > other > > > > is not? > > > > > Sure, there are probably many interior subjects and proto subjects > > > within the psyche. That's who we experience in our dreams. If the top > > > dog gets whacked on the head, then next dream they have may feature > > > their former self as a supporting character while the primary identity > > > is promoted from the undamaged ranks. It may not be discretely > > > modular, the overall personality can just shift, and this happens > > > naturally as we mature. We pay attention to different voices and it > > > shapes our identity and expression more. > > > > Interesting ideas. > > > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.