Chimp / Bonobo brains

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

ok.



that's what happens in life. not a problem. it become a problem in a filter concept that includes a conscious self that persists after the filter is destroyed.



i don't thinks so. their behavior indicates they are trying to avoid being eaten.



i am not the one who is ascribing it. the concept of filter with life review and afterlife states is ascribing it. or you think only humans (with non-defective brains) get life reviews and afterlife after the filter is destroyed? i am saying if the brain is a filter, the complexity of the individual consciousness expressed through it is determined by the structure of the filter. this causes problems. unless a separate conscious self is gone with the filter or dissipates into some single universal field of consciousness or whatever. we can't say anything about it, it may be effectively oblivion.

so i don't see what filter concept offers us. it is not a scientific theory. and non-local effects while the filter is intact do not require brain=filter concept. there are known non-local QM effects at elementary level already. i don't know what NDEs mean either. they could be due to electric activity spike observed in dying patients. or not. i don't presume to understand it.

The benefit to the transmission theory is that it allows things like aquired savanthood to exist, whereas a brainbased model doesn't. As someone pointed out, why would a damaged brain aquire new, amazing abilities, if such abilities were already inherent in the brain?

[edragone]

Originally Posted by sbu

In my opinion it would falsify transmission theory if it could be proven that your behaviour depends on your brain anatomy - at least it proves that without a brain there is no self. A transmission theory proponent should therefore go and re-check the data from studies like the chimp-bonobo study to see if the conclusions are watertight. I think it's unscientific to battle the corrolates suggesting that mind equals brain with anecdotes.

It would be interesting to see an intepretation of the data from someone without a materialistic bias.

This is why I asked my questions earlier - how strong is the implication of those brain regions to empathy, and what kind of difference are we looking at between chimps and bonobos?

Actually, how much observational research has been done on bonobos who are completely wild, away from any national reserves or parks?

[sbu]

Originally Posted by edragone

This is why I asked my questions earlier - how strong is the implication of those brain regions to empathy, and what kind of difference are we looking at between chimps and bonobos?

Actually, how much observational research has been done on bonobos who are completely wild, away from any national reserves or parks?

I think the observed differences between bonobos and chimps are valid - it's a threatened species and humanities closest ancestor so it"s bound to have received loads of attention. I'm more doubtful of the conclusions from the brain scans.

[ncg]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

that's what happens in life... it becomes a problem in a filter concept that includes a conscious self that persists after the filter is destroyed.

so i don't see what filter concept offers us. it is not a scientific theory.

I think it right and fair that you ask for the various "transmission" models be delineated, to the point of clarity. I offer only my opinion about what is a valid version. In it; the "filter" effect is not a filtering of physical objects. I think you are successfully pushing for functional definitions and deserve them. Your above comment - is problematic of correct attribution regarding the levels of abstraction (LoA) of the process components.

In a electronic communication system - during the transmission - noise filters can be functional regarding physical electronic signals and reduce interference.

Likewise, at a separate and different LoA, a "software" filter can scan the transmission and select certain syntax for inclusion or deletion. Then, again, at a third LOA the syntax selected can have a functional and meaningful purpose.

Killing a noise filter in a particular TV - doesn't affect the broadcast programing, in the environment. Destroying the TV, does stop the physical electronic signals from propagating.

I think the question is - how is there still software? "Software" developed during the life of the brain -yet still available for detection of the patterns and meanings (affordances) in the environment.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Iyace

The benefit to the transmission theory is that it allows things like aquired savanthood to exist, whereas a brainbased model doesn't.

why not? where do you get these conclusions from?

As someone pointed out, why would a damaged brain aquire new, amazing abilities, if such abilities were already inherent in the brain?

the question is not why but how. here's a proposal: when a damaged brain repairs itself, it may remap the assignment of tasks to areas of the brain that usually do other stuff. you don't know how brain repairs itself. we don't know what brain is capable of. your argument is that bc you don't understand how brain can do something, then it can't.

for example... according to what i saw, scott flansburg's brain performs intensive calculations extremely rapidly in a different brain area than normal. he has no history of brain damage (maybe it occured in infancy or before or never) but that is not the point.

and almost all people whose brain gets damaged don't become savants. by the way.

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by ncg

I think it right and fair that you ask for the various "transmission" models be delineated, to the point of clarity. I offer only my opinion about what is a valid version. In it; the "filter" effect is not a filtering of physical objects. I think you are successfully pushing for functional definitions and deserve them. Your above comment - is problematic of correct attribution regarding the levels of abstraction (LoA) of the process components.

In a electronic communication system - during the transmission - noise filters can be functional regarding physical electronic signals and reduce interference.

Likewise, at a separate and different LoA, a "software" filter can scan the transmission and select certain syntax for inclusion or deletion. Then, again, at a third LOA the syntax selected can have a functional and meaningful purpose.

Killing a noise filter in a particular TV - doesn't affect the broadcast programing, in the environment. Destroying the TV, does stop the physical electronic signals from propagating.

I think the question is - how is there still software? "Software" developed during the life of the brain -yet still available for detection of the patterns and meanings (affordances) in the environment.

there is no way to discuss levels of abstraction and software bc there is no model for what is being transmitted so how it interacts with the brain and the supposed software or where/how the software runs after the brain is destroyed = no idea. there is a bunch of other problems. EM radiation interacts with any receiver. there is well-defined, tested, mathematical model how EM field couples to matter. but in the consciousness / filter concept jim's transmission is "keyed" exclusively to jim's brain, while my cat's transmission is keyed to his, and the earthworm's transmission is keyed to his. whenever there is an interaction, there has to be a mathematical model, otherwise it is useless hand waiving.

[Iyace]

Originally Posted by 4vektor

why not? where do you get these conclusions from?

Provide me a brain-based model that would allow severe injuries to the hardware to actually increase performance.

the question is not why but how. here's a proposal: when a damaged brain repairs itself, it may remap the assignment of tasks to areas of the brain that usually do other stuff. you don't know how brain repairs itself. we don't know what brain is capable of. your argument is that bc you don't understand how brain can do something, then it can't.

First bold - Sure, but that doesn't explain ANYTHING. That doesn't explain how one would be able to calculate calenders randomly, or how one is able to play 4 instruments without LEARNING how to play them. That doesnt explain someone learning how to draw professional artwork without ever LEARNING how to do art.

Second bold - And your argument is that because the brain is complicated, everything we extrapolate is possible. That is probably the worst fallacy, because like most 'skeptics' do is mask the things they cannot explain in relative confusion. There is a lot of 'Well, the (whatever it is) is so complicated, and we don't understand it all to well, that you should agree with what I'm saying'. That may have been written out with a tinge of humor, but honestly that how it looks to me. Some of the ones I mentioned, by the way, weren't even from brain injuries. Some people just fainted, came to, and could do these things.

The follow up with the last bold, your argument is that we don't know how the brain works, that means that it can do everything.

The question is, which way of looking at the mind makes more sense of these phenomena?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Iyace

The benefit to the transmission theory is that it allows things like aquired savanthood to exist, whereas a brainbased model doesn't. As someone pointed out, why would a damaged brain aquire new, amazing abilities, if such abilities were already inherent in the brain?

Because the ability was masked by other events in the brain (inhibition). Or because the apparatus needed for the ability could now be co-opted due to lack of need by other, damaged functions.

Delete all but one app from your computer and there will be plenty of resources for the remaining app.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Iyace

Provide me a brain-based model that would allow severe injuries to the hardware to actually increase performance.

I go blind. Now portions of my visual cortex are no longer needed for vision. Perhaps I can co-opt them for calendar calculations or enhanced auditory processes.

You need to restate your question, because it sounds like when you say "severe injuries" you are thinking "total destruction."

~~ Paul

[4vektor]

Originally Posted by Iyace

Provide me a brain-based model that would allow severe injuries to the hardware to actually increase performance.

sure. the current mainstream model. and it is very unusual for this to happen. how severe? we are not talking ripping a 60% chunk out of your brain or setting the neo cortex on fire. there is always a functional brain doing these things after it has repaired itself. this is not a good way to argue for the filter model. bc the filter model needs a filter. meaning a functional filter. you mulch 1/2 the brain and the effect is the same for the filter model too, you're screwed bc you screwed up the filter beyond repair.

First bold - Sure, but that doesn't explain ANYTHING. That doesn't explain how one would be able to calculate calenders randomly, or how one is able to play 4 instruments without LEARNING how to play them. That doesnt explain someone learning how to draw professional artwork without ever LEARNING how to do art.

come on. what do we have evidence of actually? how good is he at playing these instruments? we have evidence that the guy sat down for the very 1st time with a violin and immediately started playing paganini's caprices? i see people's take on it years later. the guy has had time to practice. a very talented guy doesn't need much. look at what mozart was doing by age 6. how did he do that when he never learned to do it? well, he did learn to do it, very quickly. that's probably what happened. and the guy who sees those patterns, well, sorry but that is not very impressive. what mathematical results has this guy produced? if he woke up, and w/o any mathematical training came up with a proof of poincare conjecture, that would be.

Second bold - And your argument is that because the brain is complicated, everything we extrapolate is possible.

sorry, no. we are not talking about everything. we are talking about a few very rare isolated cases of specifically the damage --> savant thing. and those particular cases are not enough to falsify brain based model.

That is probably the worst fallacy, because like most 'skeptics' do is mask the things they cannot explain in relative confusion. There is a lot of 'Well, the (whatever it is) is so complicated, and we don't understand it all to well, that you should agree with what I'm saying'. That may have been written out with a tinge of humor, but honestly that how it looks to me.

ah, yes, the "skeptics". ze germans.

Some of the ones I mentioned, by the way, weren't even from brain injuries. Some people just fainted, came to, and could do these things.

and some of them maybe didn't even faint and just started doing amazing stuff that they couldn't or didn't realize they could do before. that means it can't be the brain?

The follow up with the last bold, your argument is that we don't know how the brain works, that means that it can do everything.

confucius say, when people generalise [fill in the rest]. please show me where and how often i used the term "everything". and then i will indicate where you use it.

The question is, which way of looking at the mind makes more sense of these phenomena?

we are discussing that. i am perfectly open to "the way of the filter" when there will be something more than hand waving on the table. while one side hand waves with the filter indefinitely w/o proposing a single verifiable, falsifiable or useful hypothesis, the other side (neuroscience) at least has managed to get something out of it that has helped a lot of people (like all the ones who suffer brain damage and get worse, not better).

i don't know why you are defending the brain = subspace transponder concept. you prefer idealism. which actually makes more sense to me.