The man with no brain

[Erock]

Came across this news article. I think there are some really cool discoveries to be made in the field of brain science, especially along the lines of consciousness.

So what do you guys think the actual physical brain controls/doesn't control? Does consciousness and the ego/mind reside in the brain or not? Interested in hearing all of your thoughts.

Erock

[Max Power]

Originally Posted by Erock

Came across this news article. I think there are some really cool discoveries to be made in the field of brain science, especially along the lines of consciousness.

So what do you guys think the actual physical brain controls/doesn't control? Does consciousness and the ego/mind reside in the brain or not? Interested in hearing all of your thoughts.

Erock

When I consider where my thoughts are/come from and what creates them, I can't see that the physical brain and physical body actually is the creative mechanism for thought. So if thought doesn't come from inside a brain, that would mean that thought comes form somehwere/something else.

Now that something else must be what we truly are and that seems to imply that we (what we really are) isn't located inside of any body or brain. When you dream at night are you still you? Seems that way, so if we can exist without a body (in dreams) then we can't be anywhere in any body.

So that seems to mean we are using our bodies as vehicles to experience creation. Now we can argue who's doing the creating, but it would also seem that no part of the human body creates anything, it's all manifested output.

I suppose a human brain controls functions of physicality like heart pumping and growth of that body, but it can't move by itself, it needs a consciousness to do that and that consciousness doesn't seem to be located anywhere in the body. I know it looks like it may be, but where? I cannot sense anywhere in my body where my thoughts come from. Some people will say that thoughts are electrical impulses firing inside the brain tissue, but I don't buy that, because I can exist in a dream and that is totally unreliant on a human body and in fact my consciousness could be completely untethered during sleep.

How can we use this in a practical way? Well, if we can accept that consciousness is not located in any body, but it uses a body to observe, then consciousness must be everything in awareness including the body of the observer. So consciousness must be everything in present moment awareness and it uses a body to observe creation.

Blah Now my brain hurts

Max

[Blueskied]

Originally Posted by Erock

Does consciousness and the ego/mind reside in the brain or not? Interested in hearing all of your thoughts.

Yes, where else?

Funny that the article is titled empty head / your thread "man with no brain". He has a brain, it's just pushed to the side of the skull. Bad journalism.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Erock

Does consciousness and the ego/mind reside in the brain or not?

All your consciousness along with all mental processes are simply the result of neuronal electrical circuitry in the brain itself...

Part of those circuits were acquired at birth... and others were formed through experience... a bit like your computer... it came with some applications and an operating system... and you added to that...

Now, if you are into the mumbo-jumbo of SR... that's your business... but, the explanation that I gave you works for me... and, I hope that it could help you in your quest to understand whatever it is that you are after...

Good luck to you...

.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Shamou

All your consciousness along with all mental processes are simply the result of neuronal electrical circuitry in the brain itself...

Part of those circuits were acquired at birth... and others were formed through experience... a bit like your computer... it came with some applications and an operating system... and you added to that...

Now, if you are into the mumbo-jumbo of SR... that's your business... but, the explanation that I gave you works for me... and, I hope that it could help you in your quest to understand whatever it is that you are after...

Good luck to you...

.

I just wonder about the consciousness that was responsible for the creation of the analogy of the computer circuits and the brain, that was aquired at birth. That consciousness obviously has a huge effect on our being. So for me, exploration and inquiry into it is and has proven extremely usefull. Otherwise I feel that I would be limiting myself and using just 'blind faith' to decide that life and consciousness just somehow popped into being.

[Erock]

I don't know, I have the hypothesis that there is something that does not reside in the brain that we assume does (consciousness, awareness, the ego, our thoughts, something). Since this is the forum for unraveling our basic assumptions, I think these assumptions about the brain should definitely be questioned.

A lot of people believe that or "soul" or whatever goes on to the afterlife, but they can't identify what it is. I think a clue could definitely reside in proving that one of those things does not reside in our brain and therefore could continue without a body.

Erock

[Blueskied]

Another article about the man with pictures:
Size Isn't Everything: Tiny Brain No Problem for French Tax Official - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

[unicorn]

Have a feast on frontier science audiostreams and get wiser on this subject:

Books & Recordings - Streaming Audio

This article is also related to the topic:
human brain,cerebral cortex,cerebellum,amydala,visual cortex,frontal lobes,neurology,cat scan,hydrocephalus,no detectable brain,dr john lorber,lobotomy,right-brain,left-brain,epilepsy,cerebrospinal fluid,encephalitis,cerebral palsy

If you are really into these kind of issues, Shift in Action | Shift In Action is also an excellent source of audiofiles with great frontier scientists explaining their work if you're up for subscribing at $10 a month. It's worth it for the material availble I think.

What some people claim that science have proved that consciousness is produced by the brain just does not stand up to closer scientific scrutiny and is a modern myth. Unfortunaltly the proponents of this view are so fanatic it takes a lot of time to dig up all the original papers to disprove their claim. In my previous "rebellious years" I did it, and found out that science basically is full of big black holes of unverified assumptions and also full of the normal ego-games where people are hellbent on being right and openmindedness a rare sight. It was a very disillusioning search... I've given up my stock in this debate - people will believe what they want to believe no matter what the evidence say, especially when the jury is still out. But I find listening to Rupert Sheldrake debunk the traditional scientific myths is highly entertaining. He is very good and knows his science so well it's pure joy to listen to him debate the conventional narrow-minded scientists stuck in ego-defense.

And for those with no position yet, just out to find out what the deal is, I choose to quote Bertrand Russel (from memory):

The problem with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the intelligent are always in doubt!

Applying that test to sources of information may save one a lot of misguided beliefs

[Sunnybayes]

The article says

"The brain itself, meaning the grey matter and white matter, was completely crushed against the sides of the skull," Dr Feuillet said.

I interpret this to mean that he had a brain, but that it was shaped in such a way (for whatever reason) that it was just well " crushed against the sides of the skull", kinda like you can take a spherical foam ball and then crush the inside so that all the mass is still there, but just on the surface.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Sunnybayes

The article says


I interpret this to mean that he had a brain, but that it was shaped in such a way (for whatever reason) that it was just well " crushed against the sides of the skull", kinda like you can take a spherical foam ball and then crush the inside so that all the mass is still there, but just on the surface.

The problem with that analogy is that you can compress foam... but I highly doubt it if you can compress neurons...

The only way that I can see what happened in the "French Tax Official" case would be that the neurons that had to be compressed (and destroyed) were reserve and not yet employed neurons...

It is to be noted that the Tax Man had an IQ of 75... which might be more than you usually see in Tax People... but still... no genius material...

.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by unicorn

Have a feast on frontier science audiostreams and get wiser on this subject:

Books & Recordings - Streaming Audio

This article is also related to the topic:
human brain,cerebral cortex,cerebellum,amydala,visual cortex,frontal lobes,neurology,cat scan,hydrocephalus,no detectable brain,dr john lorber,lobotomy,right-brain,left-brain,epilepsy,cerebrospinal fluid,encephalitis,cerebral palsy

If you are really into these kind of issues, Shift in Action | Shift In Action is also an excellent source of audiofiles with great frontier scientists explaining their work if you're up for subscribing at $10 a month. It's worth it for the material availble I think.

What some people claim that science have proved that consciousness is produced by the brain just does not stand up to closer scientific scrutiny and is a modern myth. Unfortunaltly the proponents of this view are so fanatic it takes a lot of time to dig up all the original papers to disprove their claim. In my previous "rebellious years" I did it, and found out that science basically is full of big black holes of unverified assumptions and also full of the normal ego-games where people are hellbent on being right and openmindedness a rare sight. It was a very disillusioning search... I've given up my stock in this debate - people will believe what they want to believe no matter what the evidence say, especially when the jury is still out. But I find listening to Rupert Sheldrake debunk the traditional scientific myths is highly entertaining. He is very good and knows his science so well it's pure joy to listen to him debate the conventional narrow-minded scientists stuck in ego-defense.

And for those with no position yet, just out to find out what the deal is, I choose to quote Bertrand Russel (from memory):


Applying that test to sources of information may save one a lot of misguided beliefs

Its interesting what turns up in proper, extensive investigation and inquiry, and what people often tend to take on board in 'blind faith'. I applaud your efforts of personal reliance and research.

[Brutha]

The guy still had a brain. Dinosours lived with a brain that was a lot smaller than ours. I don't no whether they were "conscious" but simply because someone has a small brain you can't conclude that the brain isn't responsible for consciousness.

Originally Posted by unicorn

Have a feast on frontier science audiostreams and get wiser on this subject:

Books & Recordings - Streaming Audio

Keep in mind that Rubert Sheldrake is exactly a member of the "scientific camp" but the "New Age camp" (he beliefs in telekinesis .
While he certainly has interesting viewpoints, you should always keep in mind where people are coming from.

[unicorn]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Keep in mind that Rubert Sheldrake is exactly a member of the "scientific camp" but the "New Age camp" (he beliefs in telekinesis .
While he certainly has interesting viewpoints, you should always keep in mind where people are coming from.

Do you mean to remind me to use the stereotyping filters of public image to filter the information he is publishing, instead of actually reading it thouroughly down to the small print and actually judging his work on it's merit and scientific standard? Have to dissapoint you there, I do not do that and I do not recommend it either....

If you need to keep in mind which "camp" a scientist is belonging to when judging the standard and quality of his work, then what is left of the glory of the objective scientific method? That is excactly the ego-games and narrowmindedness I was referring to!

[Nelson]

Originally Posted by Shamou

It is to be noted that the Tax Man had an IQ of 75... which might be more than you usually see in Tax People... but still... no genius material...

I laugehd at the tax-man joke. But I am quite certain that IQ is not a very comprehensive measure of intellect - which I define as the ability to learn quickly and thoroughly. IQ really only measures problem solving and actually I wouldn't say it comprehensively covers that either - it actually measures your ability to interpret logical patterns.

This world does not always operate in logical patterns (although in many cases it does).

Basically, what I'm saying is - IQ is a statistic which really has no relavant function in our daily lives. Being able to solve problems, on a logical, spiritual, random and moral level - while being able to present those solutions persuasively to the average man - that is what matters in the real world and that is how you can be declared a genius.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by Erock

So what do you guys think the actual physical brain controls/doesn't control? Does consciousness and the ego/mind reside in the brain or not? Interested in hearing all of your thoughts.

The physical brain is just an interface for conciousness to control your body and receive input from your senses.

[DaveTyler]

Nah consciousness is just that in the brain ofcourse IT IS a fact as evolution is

EVERY serious scientist neuroligst biologist agrees on this

[Lallymac]

I remember watching a doco (15+ yrs ago) on research done on hydrosyphilis patients who were born with water on the brain. Many of them had very little brain matter that was fragmented and dispersered inside the skull and yet were fully functioning intelligent people. When it comes to brains, obviously size doesn't matter.
The brain is the hardware. The mind is the operater able to install, update, and delete the programs.
Lallymac

[febflake]

Brain's plasticity is really amazing. It allows the brain to develop abnormally and still assume normal functions even in such extreme cases.
Neuroscience for Kids - Brain Plasticity
A hundred year ago we cured depressives and anxious people by lobotomising parts of their brains which allow to imagine future events. One guy got accidentally a metal pole through his brain and lost almost all morale but was still able to live a normal life.

Yet that is NOT evidence that something like a soul or a mind is hovering around the skull and the brain only takes care of basic stuff like breathing, eating and actioning muscles, quite the contrary. Eventually the invisible spaghetti is doing this

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Max Power

When you dream at night are you still you? Seems that way, so if we can exist without a body (in dreams) then we can't be anywhere in any body.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that when you are asleep there is still a connection between body and mind, and a correlation between activity in the brain, and experiences during sleep. Therefore you can't conclude that "we" exist external to the body. You also can't conclude that we don't. It's simply not a logical, rational, or empirically justified, argument in favour of existence of self as separate from brain/body. It's only justified if you believe in SR

Originally Posted by Max Power

I suppose a human brain controls functions of physicality like heart pumping and growth of that body, but it can't move by itself

Why not? Surely a brain capable of regulating something as complex as the many processes involved in growth would be able to manage relatively simple contraction of muscles. Hell, if animals can do it, so can we.

Originally Posted by Max Power

...I can exist in a dream and that is totally unreliant on a human body and in fact my consciousness could be completely untethered during sleep.

Then why do you wake up when someone disturbs your body during sleep?


While there is some evidence that intelligence isn't adversely affected in some cases of hydrocephalus, the studies I've seen don't discuss any other affects, such as emotions, decision making ability, reasoning, etc.

And as an example of propagation of misinformation, in the article unicorn linked to, http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm, it sounds as if a rather dramatic scientific discovery was made, however the researcher himself, Dr. John Lorber 'acknowledges that the "Virtually no brain"claim was hyperbolic: "As to the question "Is your brain really necessary?"Lorber admits that it is only half serious. "You have to be dramatic in order to make people listen,"" So Lorber used the tongue-in-cheek hyperbole to shock the medical community. He didn't intend it as a strict scientific claim.' (from Well, what about pain?... | MetaFilter)

So cases of hydrocephalus are not justification for an argument that we can function without a brain, but simply that we do not understand how we can function reasonably well despite a brain significantly different from the norm.

But for an example of where a malformed brain resulted in very significant and noticeable changes, see this site, right at the bottom of the page.

There are vast amounts of neurological data which clearly shows a correlation between certain types of brain damage and certain types of disfunction. If you want some references I'll be happy to provide them. But is suspect that if you don't agree, references would not convince you.

But that's not an argument against consciousness existing outside the brain/body. It simply shows that there is data which counters the arguments used by those quoting different sets of data. And all of that highlights the fact that we simply don't know enough.

Feblake: Where are you finding those facts? Those lobotomised patients not only had their depression cured, but also their ability to experience any secondary emotions (i.e., emotions invoked through cognition rather than direct perception).

As for the guy who took a metal pole through his brain, if you're referring to Phineas Gage, not much that is verifiable is known about him before or after the accident, and many contradictory stories show that much that was said was false. Read more here.

As for what I believe, I'm with Shamou in part. The other part is the intricate and all-important interactions between the body and brain which influence the composition of what we call our mind. Consider the feelings you experience when you encounter something new and evocative, like a dog suddenly barking loudly and aggressively as you walk past its fence. And consider the feelings you experience the next time you walk past the fence, with or without the dog barking. And then consider how you decide to walk on the other side of the street next time.

Studies undertaken by Antonio Damasio and some neurologists he works with, and described in his book Descartes' Error, show how specific kinds of brain damage affect the ability of patients to build up a repertoire of experiences like the one described above. Some of those patients would continue to be surprised by the dog every time, and would not think to cross the street.

Another example of brain damage resulting in personality/behavioural change is that of patients with anosognosis, which is the inability to recognise illness/disability in oneself. Patients with brain damage which prevents them from moving one arm, for example, will act as if there is nothing wrong. When asked to move their arm, they will say that it doesn't seem to want to move on its own, and ask if the doctor would like them to move it with their other arm. Even when it is explained to them that they are disabled, they seem to acknowledge it, then quickly revert to the same oblivious behaviour. And this occurs even in cases of acquired brain damage, where the patient knew what having two working arms was like.

But despite my current beliefs I'm keen to hear what Rubert Sheldrake has to say, and to consider his scientific findings.

[unicorn]

Thank you Mark for an excellent post - nice one to read over breakfast

It may not have come across well in my previous post, but my main intention was to indicate that the (scientific) jury is still out on this issue, and claims to certainty rests on some very unproven assumptions, not facts. But isn't that what makes it interesting though? If all the answers were out there and set in stone, we would have to divide the peoples beliefs about it into stupid/enlightened categories instead of current positions based on the probability they sense according to their level of education about it.

Have a blast with Rupert Sheldrake - he does not claim to have all the answers, and his greatest strenght is his ability to explain why the current answers are still on the table for hypothesising and further research, combined with some very interesting hypothesises of his own with data to back up the probability that he is on to something.

For me, I mostly admire a scientist/person that can express him/herself along the line of "seriously, I don't know, but I'm trying to find out..."

[febflake]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Feblake: Where are you finding those facts? Those lobotomised patients not only had their depression cured, but also their ability to experience any secondary emotions (i.e., emotions invoked through cognition rather than direct perception).

I didn't write they couldn't experience any emotions. But it seems anxiety was drastically reduced. "Cure" may not be the adequate term though
See:
S.M Weingarten, "Psychosurgery," in Miller and Cummings, Human Frontal Lobes, 446-60.
D.R. Weinberger et al., "Neural Mechanisms of Future-Oriented Processes," in Haith et al., Development of Future Oriented Processes, 221-42.

There are some paragraphs in "Stumbling on happiness" dealing with that. The author only make the assumption that the brain has dedicated parts and that a human can apparently function normally even with some part missing or damaged.

As for the guy who took a metal pole through his brain, if you're referring to Phineas Gage, not much that is verifiable is known about him before or after the accident, and many contradictory stories show that much that was said was false. Read more here.

Yes, I was referring to this story. I haven't researched it thoroughly yet and obviously only got the most impressive side of the story. Thank you for the link!
I also had on my mind some articles that were published in science vulgarisation journal over the last months in France/Belgium.
This article deals with some issues that were discussed in those journals and materials are much more recent than the Gage story.
If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural - washingtonpost.com
Neurosurgery history clearly shows that the brain has dedicated portion to perform certain tasks, I have no doubt morale/spirit is birthed somewhere in it like everything else. I don't say there is a small ball of brain tissue responsible for the whole morale compass or mind ; I say there are a lot of process and information management going on and that all of this give the "who we are/why we do things".
My opinion is that the brain - and only the brain - is the only thing which is responsible for producing the mind/spirit concept and our experiences. We may live in the after life, have astral dreaming and get high on cocaine but the brain is still the only tool that allows us to experiment this, there is no mind or soul hanging around or holding to it.
BUT I certainly hope something of us still lives once we die, and not only in memories of those who knew us. And I am using the word 'hope' and not 'belief'.