I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[NotEvenWrong]

Well there was, and still is, a poster on this thread who did refer to the holographic principle. However, he certainly never asserted it as "a core principle in modern theoretical physics".

I didn't say the poster did. I just said he referred to it. It is a core principle in modern theoretical physics, however.

 

[Nonpareil]

So there are actually two consciousnesses in the brain, it's just that they are tricking us by behaving as if their is only one consciousness!

No one is being tricked. That's rather the point. We can point at the behavior that indicates this.

This is word salad.

It's really not. It's rather straightforward. You just seem to have a persistent inability to understand anything said to you.

Well, even if it was, you would still just say mind = matter therefore materialism is right. It's absolutely hilarious that you don't see this.

Except that you couldn't.

A tip: do not try to tell someone what they are arguing when you have repeatedly and consistently failed to understand their position.

 

[The Man]

I didn't say the poster did. I just said he referred to it. It is a core principle in modern theoretical physics, however.

By all means, please, show how "It is a core principle in modern theoretical physics". One thing that poster did assert is that currently it is purely speculative.

 

[barehl]

Specifically, he couldn't consciously register images presented to one eye - I forget if it was the right or the left

It's neither. Both eyes are divided with half of each retina going to each hemisphere. You have the person look straight ahead so that the different images are contained within each half. Thus each hemisphere sees a different image. I've seen older experiments that involved having the person feel objects that were out of sight using the non-dominant hand. You mentioned alien hand syndrome. There is also hemispatial neglect.

Others might be tempted by Block’s distinction between
“access” and “phenomenal” consciousness [13], or some other
way to separate consciousness from awareness. These highly
controversial views will not be discussed here, but one must
wonder about their possible motivation

I would probably disagree with this statement the most. Awareness without consciousness is demonstrated with blind sight and sleep walking.

 

[Nonpareil]

It's neither. Both eyes are divided with half of each retina going to each hemisphere. You have the person look straight ahead so that the different images are contained within each half. Thus each hemisphere sees a different image.

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Belz...]

Oh no Belz! Guess you didn't read the link even after you said you did:

So like, their brains were actually split and yet they still had one unified field of consciousness. Which is the complete opposite of what you said previously.

I guess you don't know much about psychology if you think that just asking patients if they feel split is going to cut it. Of course their perceptions might not correspond to reality. You have to be able to isolate each half of the brain to get proper results. With both eyes and ears open, both brains have means to communicate, and sure enough, neither of them feels like they are two entities, so they'll probably never answer "yes".

In fact, when you have essentially two brains, you can only have two consciousnesses unless you believe that they communicate magically.

Did you read the whole link ?

 

[Belz...]

Wait. There is a garage dragon philosophy? And this garage dragon philosophy encompasses everything that is not materialism? Weird that I have never ever come across any "garage dragon" philosophy ever...

I think your recent posts illustrate your screen name very well.

This is great. You are saying there are two halves, and each is a single unified individual. Yet the individual (with two distinct halves) only perceives him/herself as one single individual.

Are you even aware that only one of the two halves (the left) can use speech ?

Mind is more fundamental than matter

Ah, there we are. There we find the reason for the "not even wrong" nonsense you post: you believe in souls.

 

[Belz...]

So there are actually two consciousnesses in the brain, it's just that they are tricking us by behaving as if their is only one consciousness!

Actually, there is only one, because they are connected into a single integrated system. I thought Nonpareil's posts were clear on this, but I guess you didn't read them because they don't espouse your pet theory.

This is word salad.

Translation: "I really don't know enough about this topic to properly discuss it."

 

[barehl]

Each would have the perception of being a single unified individual, because each half is a single unified individual.

There's no evidence of this that I'm aware of. Can you point to any self-referential communication by the non-dominant hemisphere?

 

[Belz...]

There's no evidence of this that I'm aware of. Can you point to any self-referential communication by the non-dominant hemisphere?

I'm not sure I understand your question but to the best of my knowledge both brains can preceive, process and answer questions independantly, and sometimes with vastly different results.

 

[Dancing David]

So it looks like this is a semantic issue: as expected we're now using the word "consciousness" to refer to different things.

When the corpus callosum is severed the brain can no longer use these nerves to communicate information between hemispheres of the brain. Therefore, it is entirely expected that each side could no longer "see" what the other side sees, as it has an information deficiency. It would be like putting a nerve block in your back where you can no longer feel your legs. You can no longer perceive your legs because the nerves can not transmit the information. This does not mean your legs are conscious.

The astonishing thing is that these patients still perceive a single unitary consciousness. Their brain is quite literally cut in half, yet they still feel they are one person. The only thing that is different is their information processing capabilities -- as you would expect if a bundle of nerves is "cut". This pretty much refutes materialism, as if materialism were true a brain that was split in half and could no longer communicate with each other would develop two distinct conscious fields.

I know of no such thing in neurology such as single unitary consciousness, what definition are you using.

Secondly the two halves can not communicate certain information , however the lower brain is still unified and can communicate with both spheres.

Unitary consciousness sounds like some philosophical term to me,.

And there are parts of their 'consciousness' that are not joined.

So maybe you should study and ask rather than making assertions about what cutting the corpus collosum does.

Where the heck does a materialist say that cutting the corpus would do this, please note the position of the corpus c in this diagram:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_callosum#/media/File:Gray720.png

Please note the areas of the limbic system and cerebellum that are below the corpus c., how did they loose their connection to the two hemispheres exactly.

Nice strawman, maybe you should try to understand the materialist POV before you pretend to refute it.

 

[Dancing David]

So they have the self-perception of a being a single unified individual and behave as if they were a single unified individual, yet you say they are "entirely separate"? Sounds like maybe you are distorting the results (and language) to fit whatever your pet ontology is. Generally "entirely separate" means "entirely separate". Not "completely together except for lack of communication on a few distinct sensory inputs".

maybe you should read some more, there is still communication between the hemispheres....
being ignorant is easily remedied, try reading up on neurology.

 

[Dancing David]

Reading the entire post helps.

The two resulting halves are entirely separate. Each would have the perception of being a single unified individual, because each half is a single unified individual.

maybe you should consider the roles of the limbic system and cerebellum, there is much of 'consciousness' that occurs and is not separate.

Memories , emotions, and certain PNS sensations will still communicate across hemispheres.

 

[Nonpareil]

There's no evidence of this that I'm aware of. Can you point to any self-referential communication by the non-dominant hemisphere?

No. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any direct communication being established with the non-dominant hemisphere. I'm not sure if any such communication would even be possible given the diminished faculties available to it - speech in particular is usually processed in the left hemisphere.

However, the two halves of the brain are both demonstrably conscious. There is brain activity in both hemispheres, and both respond to stimuli in a manner consistent with the faculties they possess. Facial recognition and mathematical capabilities differ between the two of them, for example.

Both sides are conscious, and both sides are independent of one another. The only question is to what extent the non-dominant side retains lucidity given their differing roles.

 

[Nonpareil]

maybe you should consider the roles of the limbic system and cerebellum, there is much of 'consciousness' that occurs and is not separate.

Memories , emotions, and certain PNS sensations will still communicate across hemispheres.

Fair enough. Thank you again. I'll need to do some more reading.

 

[jond]

No. Unfortunately, I am not aware of any direct communication being established with the non-dominant hemisphere. I'm not sure if any such communication would even be possible given the diminished faculties available to it - speech in particular is usually processed in the left hemisphere.

However, the two halves of the brain are both demonstrably conscious. There is brain activity in both hemispheres, and both respond to stimuli in a manner consistent with the faculties they possess. Facial recognition and mathematical capabilities differ between the two of them, for example.

Both sides are conscious, and both sides are independent of one another. The only question is to what extent the non-dominant side retains lucidity given their differing roles.

I think VS Ramachandran did some experiements on split brain patients. Might be worth hunting down.

 

[jond]

Try this (I'm on my iPad, sorry! )
Split brain with one half atheist and one half...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRlI64

 

[barehl]

By the way, wasn't there a poster early on in this thread that referred to the holographic principle (which is a core principle in modern theoretical physics) and how everything is actually information?

The holographic principle was an idea proposed to deal with loss of information relating to black holes. This is a theoretical fix to a theoretical problem. The problem may not actually exist, or it may have a different solution. So, I wouldn't describe this as a core principle. Core principles include things like mass, gravity, volume, charge, inertia, etc. I don't know of any accepted theory that describes everything as information although this concept was used in the science fiction novel Anvil of Stars by Greg Bear.

 

[barehl]

However, the two halves of the brain are both demonstrably conscious.

Both sides are conscious, and both sides are independent of one another. The only question is to what extent the non-dominant side retains lucidity given their differing roles.

We are using the term conscious in different ways. I could state this more precisely but this thread is about non-materialism. Maybe if I start a new thread.

 

[Nonpareil]

We are using the term conscious in different ways. I could state this more precisely but this thread is about non-materialism. Maybe if I start a new thread.

The question of consciousness has been central to this thread since its beginning. Just give your definition.