...when an object is shown in the right visual field, the visual information travels to the left hemisphere and the patient is effortlessly able to name it. When shown to the left visual field, however, the information travels to the right hemisphere, and when asked, the patient will typically answer that no object was seen. This phenomenon is easily explained by the fact that most people’s speech centre is located in their left hemisphere. When the hemispheres are separated, the left will be capable of naming an object, while the right hemisphere stays mute. Moreover, the left hemisphere will also eagerly answer the question intended for the right hemisphere. When it hears the question directed to the right hemisphere asking what the object was, the left hemisphere correctly and honestly reports that it did not see anything at all.
Now picture yourself listening to the completely normal looking person sitting in front of you saying that he did not see the object. He sounds absolutely sure about this. One might jump to the conclusion that the right hemisphere did not perceive the stimulus. Yet this interpretation drastically changes when the right hemisphere is asked to communicate non-verbally. For example, when instructed to point out the object from a group of objects with the left hand, patients reliably identify the object that had been presented to the right hemisphere. Not just better than chance. Every time. — Lukas J. Volz, Michael S. Gazzaniga
I should be clear about what I mean by consciousness, since people tend to talk past one another on this topic. — petrichor
Should we only believe in what is verifiable? — petrichor
How would we know? — petrichor
We have no solid reason to believe that there is anything happening in nature at all with no consciousness associated with it. — petrichor
Most consider general anaesthesia a clear case of unconsciousness. But maybe instead of making us incapable of experiencing pain, it just paralyzes us and prevents the retention of any memory of the experience. Failure to remember or report an experience is certainly not evidence of a lack of experience. How would we know if this is the case? Is there any way to tell? — petrichor
Yes, this has been demonstrated and the effect of paralyzing agents has been isolated from that of anaesthetic agents. Its called the Tunstall isolated forearm test — debd
However when anaesthetic agents are administered, even though it does not reach the forearm, the patient is unable to follow the command to move fingers because his consciousness gets impaired by anaesthetics agents in a dose dependent manner until he finally loses consciousness. — debd
Should we only believe in what is verifiable? If so, we should be skeptical of claims that anything lacks consciousness. — petrichor
Consider split-brain patients. The severing of the corpus callosum seems to split the mind into two distinct parts. Each hemisphere fails to report what is exclusively observed by the other. The ability to integrate information between hemispheres is lost. Unlike the left hemisphere, the right hemisphere can't speak. So if you talk to the patient and get a verbal answer, you generally only hear from the left hemisphere. But there are other ways of asking the right hemisphere questions and getting answers, such as by having it point to objects with the left hand. — petrichor
If we are to be scientific, we should be careful about believing in claims that cannot be verified. Nobody has ever verified the reality of unconsciousness of any kind in any sort of entity ever. We have no evidence whatsoever that such a condition is possible. Where we find no recognizable report of experience, that's all we have, simply a lack of a report, not evidence of unconsciousness.
What does evidence of consciousness look like? It always amounts for us to human-like behavior, and is often only seen as definitive when it involves verbal reports. This is obviously flawed. For one thing, we can create robots that move like humans and speak, making noises that sound like a person claiming they are conscious. Is this evidence? There are also situations like locked-in syndrome where even waking human experiences cannot be reported verbally.
It could be that mycelial networks are conscious. How would we know?
You probably see where this is going. We have no solid reason to believe that there is anything happening in nature at all with no consciousness associated with it. People who consider themselves to be scientific and to only believe based on evidence commonly believe in non-conscious, dead matter, saying that consciousness is "produced by the brain" under very special circumstances. Are they justified in their belief in non-conscious matter? Is this scientific? Should we believe in entities that have never been observed and cannot, even in principle, be observed by us? Is the existence of non-conscious matter falsifiable?
I am not suggesting that a rock might be conscious of being a rock, that rocks have thoughts, animal-like senses or any such thing. Rocks surely lack the right kind of integration for anything like that. But there could be very simple, poorly integrated experientiality in the matter that makes up rocks. This same matter, when arranged in the right way, might even become capable of reporting experience.
It might be that rather than producing consciousness, brains simply amount to a kind of organization that makes recognizable reports of experience possible.
Thoughts? — petrichor
When arranged in the "right way", it is no longer a rock. I think we have to be fair when trying to argue for something as commonly understood as consciousness. If we are going to inject new rules to the definition of consciousness, let's clearly say so. Please explain why the current definition of consciousness no longer suffice.I am not suggesting that a rock might be conscious of being a rock, that rocks have thoughts, animal-like senses or any such thing. Rocks surely lack the right kind of integration for anything like that. But there could be very simple, poorly integrated experientiality in the matter that makes up rocks. This same matter, when arranged in the right way, might even become capable of reporting experience. — petrichor
Then the Excel spreadsheet might actually be conscious -- it tells you when your input is invalid, asks you if you want to save it before closing, and provides protection for if you don't want your data to be deleted or changed.It might be that rather than producing consciousness, brains simply amount to a kind of organization that makes recognizable reports of experience possible. — petrichor
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.