| The Looking Glass Syndrome |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Martin ® 08/22/2002, 19:59:36 Author Profile Mail author |
I am reading an utterly captivating and downright astonishing book by the noted neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran, professor and director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at UCSD and an adjunct professor at the Salk Institute in La Jolla. The book is: Phantoms in the Brain. Ramachandran has a marvelously compelling personality and delightful writing style, and merely to say that he "engages" the reader is quite an understatement! As he and Oliver Sacks (who wrote the foreword) acknowledge, Ramachandran approaches his fascination with the brain in the guise of a detective puzzling out clues to mysterious maladies in pursuit of a greater knowledge and understanding. He is fascinated -- and now so am I! -- by some truly bizarre phenomena that had been quite inexplicable, including as a small sample: phantom limbs; "more 'real' than reality" hallucinations in otherwise blind visual regions which disappear when one closes one's eyes; and the limbic system and its role in the production of religious belief; etc. Rama has been personally responsible for discovering some of the vital clues which have rendered these phenomena explicable (or at least more explicable), and he carries the reader along in his discoveries as if we're in the room with him! It's a wondrous experience! Of course, Ramachandran isn't interested in peculiarities just because they're peculiar, nor is he willing to stop there. As I have long thought regarding the general topic of human belief, pathological cases can tell us a great deal. In the case of neuroscience, phantom limbs can tell us an enormous amount about the correct functioning of the brain and how it does what it does. For example, from examining the behavior of a person with a very specific brain injury in a very specific brain region, we can learn a great deal about what that part of the brain actually does and how it does it. It's a perfectly legitimate instance in which the exception proves the rule! The phenomena I want to discuss is called "mirror agnosia", which is also known in the vernacular as the "looking glass syndrome". It is as bizarre a phenomenon as any I've ever heard of! This phenomenon is actually a sub-phenomenon which occurs only in a subset of people who suffer from what is called hemineglect or neglect syndrome of the left visual field. Hemineglect of the left visual field can occur -- and often does -- in people who have had a stroke in the right part of the brain, specifically the right parietal lobe. (Most people recover from this condition spontaneously over the course of a few weeks.) What happens in such people is that they/their brains do not acknowledge (the term "neglect" isn't quite accurate) anything that occurs in their left visual field! Note that they are not blind in either eye and, in fact, CAN see perfectly well even in the left visual field when their brains consider it necessary (e.g., if a sudden movement or threat takes place in their left field), but their brains have "decided" that they don't see in their left visual field! For example, not a few people suffering from left hemineglect will not eat food on the left side of their plate! This is not because they are blind to it per se, because their eyes and optic nerves and all that are functioning perfectly (as demonstrated by the fact that most people spontaneously recover); it is more accurate to say that their brains won't acknowledge anything on their left visual fields. This then segues into the Looking Glass Syndrome or mirror agnosia, which only occurs in certain people suffering from left hemineglect. Ramachandran is fascinated -- quite understandably -- by the brain's various reactions to a mirror in different circumstances. He successfully used mirrors to understand phantom limbs and even used a simple mirror-box arrangement to treat and even "cure" in some cases the amazing phenomenon of phantom limb pain, which is a particularly severe form of pain that is substantially worse than labor or appendix or gall-bladder pain! The mirror box worked as follows: the patient put both the still-extant limb and the phantom limb in the mirror box, which due to its design presented the extant limb in the opposite side's visual field. Upon doing so, the patient's brain saw what it "thought" was a real limb in the place where "it" had not seen one since the amputation, and -- lo and behold -- the phantom pain disappeared immediately! The implications of that are so amazing and extraordinary that you simply must read Phantoms in the Brain to begin to understand them! I will only entice you to read the book by observing that one clear implication of that finding is that, in an important sense, everyone's bodies are composed of "phantom limbs"! We finally come to the unbelievable phenomenon of mirror agnosia. For people with this "looking glass syndrome", perfectly bright, rational, and knowledgeable people behave as if real mirrors are no more concrete and impassable than the one Lewis Carroll described in his wonderful fantasies Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There! Here is what Ramachandran discovered and how he discovered it... He had been informed of a left hemineglect patient and, bearing in mind what he had learned about mirrors with phantom limbs, decided he would investigate what effect a mirror would have with such patients. Since he knew that left hemineglect patients would respond to anything quite naturally if it was presented to them in their right visual field, his working hypothesis was that if a mirror were set up on their right sides to reflect elements that would otherwise be in their left visual field, such a patient would then respond normally to those elements, just as if they were in their right visual field. For instance, if a mirror were placed on the right side of their dinner plate so that it reflected the left side, such a patient would notice the untouched food and eat it. What Ramachandran did was set up a mirror on the patient's right side so that it reflected their left visual field while looking directly forward, and then placed an object so that it was well within reach of her right arm but was in the "neglected" left visual field. However, it was completely visible and obvious in the mirror. He asked the patient to reach for and take the object. Now consider, my friends and colleagues, what would you have expected to happen? What would you have done? We all know what mirrors are and how they work -- just like these patients do -- and thus we would know that it would be extremely pointless and ridiculous to try to reach into the mirror itself to try to grab the object, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THESE PATIENTS DID!! They tried -- quite futilely -- to reach INTO the mirror to grab the object! Repeatedly! It didn't matter what their right hand was experiencing as it continued to bang against the glass nor that they knew exactly what was going on! They just kept on trying to reach into the mirror when strongly pressed to grab the object and finally admitted that they couldn't grasp the object because it wasn't "in their reach" for some strange reason. Now you may think that the person somehow didn't understand for some reason what a mirror was and how it works and that there is nothing behind or "in" them, but that is not true! Ramachandran asked them specifically if they knew what the thing was and how it worked and, being sentient beings, they all insisted (quite impatiently, I would imagine) that they knew perfectly well all about mirrors and the fact that the objects reflected by them are not actually in them. But when pressed strongly by Dr. Ramachandran, they could only keep hitting the glass of the mirror in an effort to reach within it with utter futility before refusing to continue to try! (I should remind you here that not all left hemineglect patients behave this way.) But the startling fact is right there for us all to see: Not even our fully conscious, informed, and highly vaulted intellects are necessarily enough to override what the brain "wants" us to believe regarding our perceptions!
Modified by Martin at Thu, Aug 22, 2002, 20:18:24 |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
PBS Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rpcman ®
08/22/2002, 23:49:59
Author Profile Mail author
Related link: Secrets of the Mind
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
08/23/2002, 00:44:52
Author Profile Mail author
"The looking glass syndrome" you mention in the book you are now reading,"Phantoms in the Brain" seems to be another complicated step up the ladder in this very intriging subject. I must read this book.
My thought on this (from a sophomoric,neophytic point of view of course) is this:
I suspect that because our visual sense developed long before our intellectual capacity to contemplate and analyze what we were "Seeing", our brains are still at a somewhat disadvantage in this respect. We reacted instinctively to visual inputs for millions of years before our intellect developed. This might be even more so in "Hemineglect" patients. In some instances,possibly, our brains are still trying to catch up with a sense that, in many ways is ahead of it. Our brain seems to give the greatest weight to visual clues and often, if pushed, will outvote the other senses, even logic in some cases.
I see the brain as an elaborate electro-chemical processer that brings in information through the five main senses, that we know of, and tries to make judgements about the world around it. Possibly it needs some more time (heaven forbid I use the word evolution) before it would never be fooled by our much older physical senses and especially the mirror in Mr. Ramachandran's experiment. Only time will tell.With great respect for you,
TLCP.S. WWW.DISCOVER.COM/NEUROQUEST
has some fun stuff to try on this subject
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/23/2002, 10:12:16
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for your reference to the very interesting, "hands-on" articles in Discover Magazine regarding neurology! They have a very nice collection there. I couldn't locate the specific experiment you were referring to about "transferring" sensation to a photo of your hand, but in the book I was discussing, Ramachandran outlines the same experiment (substituting a fake hand purchased from a magic or halloween shop). He also goes on to show that with the same technique, it is possible to "transfer" one's sensation even to a desk or chair! Another example of an experiment to reveal this phenomenon is described in the neurology section you found at Discover: Grow your nose two feet in two minutes This phenomenon is quite amazing! Ramachandran provides reasons for why this occurs in his book.
You then start a new thought by writing: "My thought on this (from a sophomoric,neophytic point of view of course) is this:
I'm sorry I helped make you gun-shy, my friend. As long as you maintain your remarkably strong sense of intellectual honesty and integrity (and I can't believe you would suddenly eschew it), you have nothing whatsoever to be apprehensive about from me, I promise you!
So I will take the liberty of re-phrasing that paragraph as follows: "My thought on this is: I suspect that because our visual sense developed long before our intellectual capacity to contemplate and analyze what we were "Seeing", our brains are still at a somewhat disadvantage in this respect. We reacted instinctively to visual inputs for millions of years before our intellect developed. This might be even more so in "Hemineglect" patients. In some instances,possibly, our brains are still trying to catch up with a sense that, in many ways is ahead of it. Our brain seems to give the greatest weight to visual clues and often, if pushed, will outvote the other senses, even logic in some cases."
That's very clear and insightful reasoning! And quite an interesting observation and speculation. I think you are most probably correct about that. The cerebrum developed slowly and late during evolution, millions of years after visual systems and firm-wired response systems had been established in our ancestors. We understand, for example, that sensory perceptions generally tend to "bubble up" from the "older" portions of the brain only later in sensory processing, almost (but not actually, of course) as if out of mere "courtesy".
Thanks again, TLC!
- Martin
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
08/24/2002, 01:52:04
Author Profile Mail author
On the subject of brain function and neuro-circuitry,which started this thread, I have a very personal interest in this and is the primary reason I had to jump in when I did.
I spent a great many of my adolescent and young adult years as an intense stutterer. It started in late high school and continued well into my adult years. At our present period in time, it is hardly noticable at all. It has gradually gone away, but not 100% Apparently, some aqquired self confidence and knowledge over time can possibly contribute to some rewiring of speech center circuitry.
This affliction affects 3 million people in the U.S. alone and experts are still mainly in the dark as to why. Some people never overcome it and I really feel for them. I consider myself one of the lucky ones. Most people I converse with verbally hardly even notice. My hunt and peck typing method never suffers though. ( humor)
Anyone who is not a stutterer cannot ever hope to understand the experience and horror of having a word in your mind and hearing it mentally while at the same time having your diaphragm or jaw muscles lock in a kind of paralysis. Ever slept on your arm and then try to control it? We all have. It is something that feels similar to that. When they repeat a word several times, it is as if the brain somehow doesn't acknowledge once is enough. Kind of like a scratched phonograph record that will repeat over and over.
Most experts do agree that in almost all cases,stuttering is from a non-physical cause. Something has upset the apple cart in the realm of speech center circuitry and pulled some wires loose. They do know that, most likely, several different factors contribute to this horrible affliction.
One new, promising hope I recently heard about is a sort of sound scrambling device that a stutterer inserts into his ear. It works by disabling the user from hearing his own words as spoken and all he hears is a scrambled mess internally. I saw this demonstrated and was amazed at it's effectivness on some individuals. So apparently some individuals have a fear, of some kind, of hearing their own words. Low self esteem? It is still new and might not work in all cases. I'm exited about it, if it can help anyone. Basically it's another method to recreate a reality and fool the brain. The current price of the device is around four thousand dollars.In my youth, I would have paid forty thousand gladly. New advances in technology and knowledge are helping a multitude of people in so many ways.As you and I both know, Speech and language were created together to make us the special beings on the planet that we are. They grew as a necessity to communicate our intellect and knowledge aqquired over the millenia. The act of creating little symbols to represent our words and thoughts and recording them on cave walls or now the great books (or CD's) we now have access to, is to me , Homosapiens greatest accomplishment to date. What could possibly top this?
Speech, being a man made invention, is a relatively new arrival on the scene, even after our intellect which of course was a prerequisite. What this indicates to me is that possibly we have forced a capability on or trained our brain to do a very complicated task that it could not have naturally developed on it's own. It has the ability to wire and rewire itself in amazing ways to do our bidding,but it probably has a way to go to be a perfect organ, even with all it's supposedly unsed circuits. When stuttering, the speech centers are in a kind of panic and are frantically rerouting signals until they finally make a connection and the word comes out.
In some cases, I think maybe the brain rebels and tends to revert back to it's more primative natures for self preservation when challenged by recent concepts such as tricks with mirrors or possibly even speech, such as might be the case with some stutterers.Anyway, this is is a subject that I have always been naturally intrigued by and hope that by interjecting my thoughts here I haven't strayed too far from your main theme in the thread.
Thanks once more for making me feel so welcome to this board. I feel whole heartedly that I can only grow in a positive intellectual manner by being exposed to the likes of you and others here.
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Some more welcoming Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/24/2002, 10:49:04
Author Profile Mail author
These last two posts of yours have been extremely interesting and thoughtful. It's clear that you're one of those people really capable of slowing down and reflecting on things--and hence truly learning. At any rate, I just thought you'd like to know that it's not just Martin who's glad to see you contributing here.
Cal
Modified by Cal at Sat, Aug 24, 2002, 10:49:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/24/2002, 15:35:04
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you so much for your post! I'm glad you feel comfortable enough to discuss your speech difficulty, which I well understand can be a source of great personal embarassment. My best friend for many years was a moderately severe stutterer, and I empathetically shared both his plight, his embarrassment, and his frustration; he understandably HATED it when people tried to "help" him, even though he understood perfectly well that they all meant well (which only made the frustration he felt even worse!)
I don't think I have time at the moment to reply to all of the things you've said or even the other fine replied in this thread at the moment, but I thought I would share something with you. It strongly suggests that in a majority of cases there is something physical (if you consider genetic influence to fit the category of physical) involved (although, like most other such phenomena, both nature and nurture play a role).
See Medical Aspects of Stuttering
Thanks again!
- Martin
p.s.: You no doubt know of the story of Demosthenes and how he cured his stuttering, yes?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
08/25/2002, 20:51:47
Author Profile Mail author
When I said that it usually is not considered of physical origin, I meant physical damage such as a blow to the head or damage from high fever or the like.
Yes, dopamine levels are highly suspected and the genetic influences on the distribution of these agents and others. When I was in high school and especially in my college years, one of the first things I learned was the influence of alcohol on inhibiting "my" stuttering. Four beers and it was gone. The dark side of this was, often with a hangover, the problem was then increased the next day. Chemical agent influence confirmed.
Thanks again for the valued references you always give me on this other subjects.Respectfully,
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
The question of "psychogenic" problems Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/27/2002, 12:09:36
Author Profile Mail author
I know there's a pragmatic importance to this distinction in medical research. It operates, for example, in double-blind studies that seek to ensure that it's actually the workings of the drug itself rather than the "psychological" effect of having been administered the drug in a comforting setting that accounts for a patient's improvement.
But the distinction isn't just pragmatic. In double-blind studies, the question is often how to show that there's some direct link between what the drug does and the improvement of the patient's condition. All double-blind studies at least gesture at the viability of producing some account of the mechanisms that produce the improvement, so that one's not left with a sense that a given treatment's effective simply because of "psychological factors."
What's more, an account that directly links a treatment's beneficial effects to some mechanism adds greatly to the idea that the treatment isn't just effective for for "psychological" reasons. In that case, the treatment truly works directly on the physiological determinants of the problem, whether it be stuttering, severe depression, cancer, or whatever.
Some questions:
1. Assuming psychological factors don't escape some physiological or naturalist account, is there a good way to make sense of this "psychological-physiological" distinction?
It is, after all, a helpful distinction, even to those of us who think the "psychological" isn't fundamentally non-physiological. Think about how, for a naturalist, credible evidence of Jesus raising someone from the dead would differ from credible evidence that Jesus healed all kinds of folk from psychosomatic disorders such as hysterical blindness and so forth.
2. Are there differences that the distinction properly refers to even if through a glass darkly? If so, in what ways are they misleading?
E.g., TLC falls back on indisputably "physiological" factors--treatments based on chemicals or on good engineering--to show that he doesn't think that chemicals and so forth are irrelevant even to stuttering problems, even if they involve a strong "psychological" component.
3. Still, the distinction is still there in what TLC says. And almost all researchers and physicians I've met employ it also. You and I (however materialist we are) make these distinctions ourselves. What is this "psychological" component that isn't the same thing as some clear "physiological" compontent of our lives?
I'm repeating myself. I'd love to see if any of you can help me see things more clearly.
I'd argue that the distinction offers up some real difference that we shouldn't gainsay, but which isn't clearly understood yet. And that it's misleading especially when it suggests we should posit something immaterial constitutive of the phychological aspects of our lives.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The question of "psychogenic" problems Re: The question of "psychogenic" problems -- Cal Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
08/28/2002, 23:16:50
Author Profile Mail author
The old physiological/psychcological debates go on and on. Sometimes I suspect that there might not ever be an eventual fully identifiable clear difference between the two. They possibly might not be no more separable than a sub-atomic entity that performs as both a particle and a wave at the same time. How close are we to figuring this one out?
The complexity and symbionic interdependence of our brain structures is a long way from our comprehensive understanding.Just to emphasize how an affliction such as stuttering can imbed itself in ones psyche, I can actually
remember stuttering or picking and choosing easier words in dreams while sleeping. Give me a break please. I can also remember an earlier therapist of mine being really intrigued with this one. How physical or naturalist are dreams?I didn't want to beat this subject to death, but I really, really appreciate the inputs that you and Martin have offered up so thoughtfully on a subject that is so important to me and a multitude of others.
Thanks again;
TLC
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: oops! I messed up here. Help please. Re: #12186 -- TLC Top of thread Archive
Posted by: rdl ®
08/29/2002, 06:31:26
Author Profile Mail author
:-)
rdl
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thank you Rdl Re: Re: oops! I messed up here. Help please. -- rdl Top of thread Archive
Posted by: TLC ®
09/05/2002, 21:58:03
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
08/23/2002, 02:23:02
Author Profile Mail author
I am not at all surprised that these hemineglect sufferers continued to go for the object in the mirror. If it was previously established that they do not acknowledge objects in their left field of vision, why would there be any reason to assume that a mirror image on their right side would cause them to reach for it on their left? The only recognized image of the object was on their right side. That's why they reached for it - it was the only place, in their mind, that the three-dimensional object could possibly exist. If it did not exist on their left side, then they would not reach for it over there.
It would be interesting to see the exact set up of the mirror, and whether there were any other reference points in the mirror image besides the object and the table it was on. I think that if the subject could have seen the edge of the table within the image, and that edge did not coincide with the rest of the table on their right side, then the subject may have had enough reference to understand that the object was not really on their right side. Furthermore, did these people have their heads restrained? I ask because simply turning one's head 60 degrees would have allowed most of the images on the left to show up in the right field of vision.
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
08/23/2002, 10:54:29
Author Profile Mail author
Does he discuss the possibility of overcoming the problem? Would it be possible for them, through some type of exercises to reprogram their brain--or trick it into breaking this rule?
It almost seems to me to be an extreme version of bad coordination; the conscious mind seemingly incapable of forcing the body to do something which is understood well but somehow impossible to pull off.
Brilliant of the guy to think of conducting such an experiment. Discoveries like this always seem so much more obvious in retrospect.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
re: Overcoming the problem Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Fer-de-lance Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
08/24/2002, 17:49:05
Author Profile Mail author
Gunnar
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page
Ramachandran's Wonderland Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Cal ®
08/23/2002, 13:29:28
Author Profile Mail author
For one thing, his case studies provoke a real sense of wonder. They estrange you from any sense that the "soul" is an effortless accomplishment. Just because, being unaware of the physical bases of our actions and perceptions, our ways of dealing with the world all seem so effortless and free doesn't mean it isn't a brain and body through which this effortless stuff gets accomplished.
Second, these case studies make clearer--more graphic--that basic features of our sense of the world and even of ourselves as selves are constituted by the activities of our brains and bodies. This is hard to convey partly because "soul-behavior" seems to be bigger and more mysterious, more wonderful, than anything a physical system could realize.
Third--and this is something you might not have thought of in reading the book--the case studies almost always raise extremely difficult and interesting questions about personal identity. What are the criteria for identifying someone as the same person over time? Can we identify any? Is it possible that "I" could die given some physical blow to my brain and body that doesn't kill my body but which alters me beyond the point of thinking that "I" still exist?
Think of the terrible case of Rickey Ray Rector, the death-row inmate that Governor Clinton let die. He committed murder and then turned the gun on himself. But he didn't manage to kill himself. Instead he administered more or less a self-lobotomy, rendering himself docile and mentally retarded. He's the one who famously saved the pecan pie from his last meal for after the execution. If you were a prison guard, would you be justified in feeling some real moral indignation when you were forced to deal with Rickey Ray Rector? Or was he a new person given what had happened to his brain and given his new, docile character? Was Rector himself even executed under Clinton's watch?
And then think of the cases that Ramachandran presents. They raise similar questions.
It's funny, at any rate, that you've brought up Ramachandran's book right now. I'm preparing for the beginning of classes, and so I'm reading through his book once again because it's part of the hook I try to offer the first few weeks of classes. Philosophy begins in wonder, and there's plenty of wonder in thinking through Ramachandran's patients and the meaning of their condition.
Cal
Modified by Cal at Fri, Aug 23, 2002, 13:33:48
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
08/23/2002, 13:55:39
Author Profile Mail author
I bought Ramachandran's book a few months ago, but I am reading "The Feeling of What Happens" by Damasio for now. But I am very intrigued by Ramachandran's work.
As I have read throuh Damasio's book, there have been some interesting insights that have come to me about qualia (no thanks to Damasio BTW).
It is demonstrated by left visual field hemineglect, but also by blindsight experimental observations, that the brain does in fact register the presence of the "blind area." As you mentioned, hemineglect folks can react to stimuli in the left field, though I might add, they wouldn't know why.
You say: Note that they are not blind in either eye and, in fact, CAN see perfectly well even in the left visual field when their brains consider it necessary (e.g., if a sudden movement or threat takes place in their left field), but their brains have "decided" that they don't see in their left visual field!
I have not looked at this data yet, and I would invite you to check it for us. When you say that these people are not "blind" in their left field, I believe you are making a mistake. In fact they could be "blind" and yet react to stimuli just fine, as in the case of blindsight. Do these people actually claim to have seen something when reacting, or do they react without knowing why?
The fact of the matter, and I find it incredibly interesting, is that sensorial input and computation in the occipital lobe does not equate to "vision," or the experience of seeing.
Seeing occurs when subconscious computation is coded into qualia representations, or computation is symbolized in the complex association of qualia, or experiential elements.
If what the brain registers doesn't make it to consciousness, the person did not "see" the thing at all. They are literally blind becuase they are not conscious of the visual processing. If they react to stimuli, they will not know why.
The mirror experiment is fascinating. I will have to go take a preview trip through that section...
I will be back to talk about this more with you. Let me know if I am mistaken about what I said about their really not experiencing sight... this could be a totally different phenomenon... which I would like to find out.
TV
Modified by The Vines at Fri, Aug 23, 2002, 23:37:50
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/24/2002, 17:16:17
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks for joining in the discussion! I had hope you would...
I'm afraid I'm pressed for time right now, but I did want to answer some of the very thoughtful points you raised, as you requested...
You asked: "I have not looked at this data yet, and I would invite you to check it for us. When you say that these people are not "blind" in their left field, I believe you are making a mistake. In fact they could be "blind" and yet react to stimuli just fine, as in the case of blindsight. Do these people actually claim to have seen something when reacting, or do they react without knowing why?"
These people are not blind in any way, not even in their left visual regions.
One secondary reason I personally do not believe this condition qualifies as actual blindness is that, as I stated in my O.P., a significant majority of people recover from hemineglect spontaneously after a fairly short while (a matter of weeks). To me, at least, that is generally inconsistent with true blindness, which results from congenital or accidental permanent damage to the eyes, the optic nerves, or the primary visual cortex.
But I'll let Ramachandran speak for himself. Here are his own words in reply to one such patient's son asking about his mother's hemineglect:
Patient's son: "You mean she's blind on the left side?"These patients can see and will acknowledge seeing in their left visual field in certain cases. Ramachandran reports that if he holds one of his fingers up in her left-only visual field, she will "neglect" it's existence, but if he wiggles his finger she sees it fine! And she will correctly acknowledge exactly what she sees: a finger wiggling. This is what makes mirror agnosia so utterly amazing (in direct opposition to Zip's absurd nonchalance)!Ramachandran: "No, not blind. She just doesn't pay attention to what's on her left. That's why we call it neglect" [instead of blindness].
No, these patients aren't blind in any way. It's not that they can't see in their left visual field, it's that they usually won't! This is radically different from blindsight.
(An aside on blindsight for those interested: There are two separate visual processing pathways in the brain (actually, multiple sets of two, but I don't want to over-complicate it). An "old" one (evolutionarily speaking), and the "new" one which is very fine and detailed and is our species' primary visual system. In blindsight patients, although their "new" pathway is damaged and this leaves them effectively blind in the standard meaning of the word, their eyes and optic nerves are still working fine and still relaying signals from them along the "old" visual pathway. This "old" pathway therefore still functions and still allows them to "see" things in a very limited and peculiar way, but this old pathway does not "report" to awareness (little "c" consciousness) so the patients themselves cannot honestly report being aware of what's in their visual field, even though other parts of their brain still have minimal "information" about what's in their visual field. Blindsight turns out to be less mysterious than I had once imagined.)
As for your mention of computation, you will discover that Ramachandran holds that such ideas -- along with Tooby's and Cosmides' massive modularity theory -- are substantially exaggerated in importance or relevance. And I'll bet that if you read Fodor's astonishingly compelling arguments in his response to Pinker, Tooby, and Cosmides in his book The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, you would change your perspective completely!
Today's Jerry Fodor is, in my very strong opinion, one of THE most sagacious and brilliant logicians I have ever encountered, and his logical analyses and arguments in Doesn't Work That Way are awe inspiring. The compelling power of some of his arguments impressed me so greatly that I felt something like a quasi-religious experience upon reading them!
As you have previously pointed out, Fodor still thinks modularity is the best thing going, but what you would discover if you read his book is that Fodor thinks that's an absolute tragedy! He mourns the fact that, in his opinion, Pinker's, Tooby's, and Cosmides' approach is as good as there is right now, because he has persuasively argued that their approach is deeply and fundamentally flawed and cannot lead to anything particularly fruitful. And like I said, his arguments are, in my opinion, absolutely devastating.
Sorry for the diversion, but I thought you would be interested to know that Ramachandran doesn't hold much with Pinker, Tooby, and Cosmides either...
- - -
Enjoy Phantoms In the Brain, my friend! It will utterly fascinate you just as it did me!
- Martin
p.s.: While Fodor's arguments are absolutely compelling and masterful, he writes in an often unnecessarily dense and abstruse style, so his book is not very accessible, I'm afraid. But I don't think you'll have much problem, my friend.
Modified by Martin at Sat, Aug 24, 2002, 17:24:38
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Blindness and qualia Re: Re: The Looking Glass Syndrome -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
08/25/2002, 06:43:05
Author Profile Mail author
Let me first say something about Cosmides, Tooby, and Pinker. The aspect of their ideas that I am mostly interested in is not so much their ideas of modules, because in the end, I have seen very little neuroscientific backup to their work, and I think that speeking about modules without backing up the theory with observations of PET and CAT scans, EEG's etc, is a very incomplete approach. In this sense, their theory is very provincial IMO. I am mostly interested in their approach to the actual evolution of the mind.
The idea that human behavior is the consequence of evolution is IMO right on. To look for what we are outside of our evolutionary heritage is off track entirely.
I think these three scientists have truly shed much light on aspects of human behavior by associating behavior to the possible evolutionary scenarios that could have caused their emergence. In this sense they have taken both psychology, sociology, and anthropology to levels that have never been reached before.
Fodor, can argue against Pinker, or whoever he wants about how the mind works in his opinion, but if he really wants to provide something useful he needs to stop begging the question and start telling us WHY the mind works the way it does.
I think Pinker has the same problem in his book. He often talks about apparent mechanisms, resorting to reverse engineering at times to explain the "why," and I think those aspects of his work shine, but when he diverts his attention from the addressing of the "why," then his ideas become blurry.
Personally, I think modularity is highly incomplete because it neglects almost entirely the aspect of consciousness and of synchronicity between modules.
That the brain is wired to do things based on an inherited pattern is an unavoidable fact... its just a matter of figuring out how that all happens, and perhaps the discovery of the "how" will be proceded by the discovery of the "why."
I find Evolutionary Psychology to be very good when focusing on the "why," but highly insufficient when attempting to address the "how." Consequently, I think Pinker's book is good when it addresses "Why the brain works," but at best sufficient when he addresses "How the brain works." Unfortunately for him, he chose the second as is his title. Having said that, I don't say that what he says about how the brain works is not valid, indeed it is. But it is very incomplete.Back to Rama...
I look forward to reading his book! Thanks for your response. I must confess that I am still unclear about your's and his statements.
It seems to me that we are back in the inevitable problem of words... What does it mean that the brain chooses to not pay attention to something? Does the brain have agency? Obviously not! The brain doesn't choose to neglect the left... its just that probably, from what I can gather, the modules in the right brain that are responsible for much of our spatial coordination, as the left is for language, are somewhat non-functional.
The modules that take care of the analysis of movement of objects are not the same as those that compute static elements of the visual field. Movement is usually associated to agents. An agent has a multitude of neural circuits analyzing it.
It seems to me that when Rama says:
"No, not blind. She just doesn't pay attention to what's on her left. That's why we call it neglect" [instead of blindness].
... he is complicating the issue, and also stating the false. First of all "she" doesn't do anything. If anything we should learn from this that the brain decides what will come into "attention."
She is not blind? When he doesn't wiggle his finger she has no clue right? Its only when he wiggles the finger that she sees. Obviously the part of her brain that takes care of static objects in the left visual field are damaged, and not the parts that take care of agents. As long as the finger is still it is not computed as an agent, hence the stimuli is routed to a circuit that just happens to not work properly... well at least we know that it doesn't allow for the formation of a qualia representation.
When R. says that the women does not pay attention to the object, he is saying that she in not conscious of it. He uses the term "attention" which is QUITE unfortunate! Attention is not the point at all, and is IMO misleading. Obviously the problem is not in the brain stem, responsible for attention, but in its association to the right cerebral cortex that analyzes the left visual field.
What I would like to see is a study identifying the neural correlates to the analysis of agents in the visual field, and those that correlate to static objects. I would bet that those suffering from hemineglect have damage to the parts that take care of static stuff.
As to blindness... hemineglect is not blindness. But what is blindness? When we see, how do we see?
Vision is not the working of visual cortex in the occipital lobe, its the process through which the computations occuring there emerge into consciousness. Of course, that doesn't mean that one cannot see without consciousness. In fact one can see without conscioiusness, but one cannot experience sight without consciousness.
Hence, hemineglect patients, as well as split brain patients, may be able to see things while at the same time not experiencing sight of those things.
So, when do we define one as blind? For me, when one cannot see consciously, or experience sight, the person is blind, because to me sight is experience of visual stimuli and processing.
I do not think the issue is attention here as much as the lack of experience of static elements of the left visual field.
One thing to note is that the left eye is represented in the right brain only in part. I think its about 65% of the eye's range that actually goes to the right brain.. so one needs to take into consideration the fact that the eyes may rapidly scan objects passing information from the left eye also to the left hemisphere.
I am pretty sure that part of the processing of both eyes will be effected by this brain condition. The part of the right eye closest to the nose actually projects, I believe, to the right hemisphere. If the left eye were covered, I think part of the right eye's field would encounter this problem (hemineglect) as vice-versa part of the left eye's range should not suffer from hemineglect effects (the part closest to the nose).
If this is not the case, that would be very interesting becase I think that would lead to the assumption that somehow qualia is linked to an internal representation of what should be represented by each eye rather than to actual stimuli being gathered by each visual field.
Does Ramachandran also do some experimentation and brain scans?
Thanks for your response, and for a highly interesting post!
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Blindness and qualia (revised) Re: Blindness and qualia -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/25/2002, 19:24:40
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for your reply! But there are several portions which puzzle or trouble me. Let me respond in the order you discussed them...
Regarding Fodor vs Pinker, I will be interested to see how you will reply to Fer-de-lance's thread Q for Vines and Martin about Jerry Fodor and the article Fer-de cites of Fodor's, The Trouble with Psychological Darwinism. (Alas, that article does not allow you to see Fodor's logical brilliance at work as you would if you read his The Mind Doesn't Work That Way.) Note also that Ramachandran sides with the positions held by Fodor and against the position held by Pinker, Tooby, and Cosmides, which is why I raised the issue in this thread to begin with.
The main problem with Pinker's, Tooby's, and Cosmides' approach is that, no matter how far it progresses, by its very nature of focusing on computation and massive modularity, it both ignores and cannot address the most important and interesting mysteries, questions, and aspects of cognition and Consciousness. As I've thought all along (and Ramachandran apparently agrees), there has to be some kind -- or a few kinds -- of global "overseer" that Pinker's, et. al., approach cannot accommodate.
You write: "The idea that human behavior is the consequence of evolution is IMO right on. To look for what we are outside of our evolutionary heritage is off track entirely."
While I do not deny that evolution is very critical to understanding human behavior, I must say that I have doubts that all of human behavior is the direct consequence of evolution (at least as it is generally understood in terms of selection and adaptation, and certainly not in terms of the evolution of a single organ on its own). To put it another way, I think that while a very great deal of human behavior can be best explained in terms of evolution and gene selection, I am increasingly skeptical that it can explain it all. As Fodor remarks in the article Fer-de-lance cited, there is a huge qualitative gap between chimpanzee vs human cognition and behavior, but- there are only small differences in neuroanatomy. While neither I nor Fodor believes the mechanism for the difference is not natural (i.e, we both assign zero credibility to ideas like Creationism and/or "Intelligent Design"), evolution may not be the explanation for all of the difference (nor can I credit "emergent properties" playing a significant role), so to "look for what we are outside of our evolutionary heritage" may not be so entirely off track after all. Now, you may reply (as you did below) that merely doubting something is not useful or relevant, but I am a skeptic and that is our nature!
You write: "I think these three scientists have truly shed much light on aspects of human behavior by associating behavior to the possible evolutionary scenarios that could have caused their emergence." I tend to agree, but when for example I read Fodor's compelling arguments showing the fatal weaknesses in their assertions and reasoning on, for example, the so-called "cheater detection module", I am forced to wonder. (Fodor proves, using a strict logical analysis, that the prevailing argument from EP about the "cheater detection module" is not logically valid, and further that the experiments designed to demonstrate the existence of this alleged "module" are logically, semantically, and methodologically flawed). But keep in mind that Fodor is NOT arguing (nor am I) that their work wasn't valuable and did not produce important insights, only that it's underlying assumptions and theoretical foundation are weaker than generally assumed and are of only limited relevance to the genuine mysteries of cognition and Consciousness.
But then we come to a point about which I must very strongly disagree! You write: "Fodor, can argue against Pinker, or whoever he wants about how the mind works in his opinion, but if he really wants to provide something useful he needs to stop begging the question and start telling us WHY the mind works the way it does."
I could not disagree more strenuously! Do you honestly mean to assert that the role of "Devil's advocate" in science is mere "question begging"??? Or that it's not extremely valuable? We would certainly part company on that point! I can't think any MORE valuable role of philosophy in science than to point out theoretical and philosophical weaknesses! One does NOT need to know the "right" answer to expose the weaknesses and flaws in the proffered answers. Fodor is performing an incredibly valuable service to the advancement of that science!
Furthermore, Fodor is pointing out conceptual and theoretical and philosophical problems that Pinker, et. al., either ignore entirely or are confused or mistaken about. Consider, for example, some of the presumptuous and unsound philosophical arguments that Tooby and Cosmides have made, as seen in Fodor's response to one of their more outrageous a priori arguments here: Jerry Fodor's "The Mind Doesn't Work That Way"
You later write: "I find Evolutionary Psychology to be very good when focusing on the 'why,' but highly insufficient when attempting to address the 'how.'"
That may well be true, but speaking personally, I keep growing less and less comfortable with that view all the time. Sociobiology is so powerful and is so relatively resilient to criticism because it does not speculate too far beyond the observable facts or go into overly speculative details. It's province is general human nature, not an attempt at a specific accounting for the details of human behavior. But it's offspring, evolutionary psychology, does in fact often go far beyond the observations into some precarious speculations with rather detailed and specific hypotheses and assertions. Even though I am a strong advocate of sociobiology, I've always been more leery of evolutionary psychology precisely because it seems so very speculative -- in regard to both "how" AND "why" (in my opinion).
Don't get me wrong, though: I still contend that understanding human psychology is impossible without taking human evolution very substantially into account, but I think that EP's tendency to try to explain too much about psychology too soon may be jeopardizing it's credibility.
- - -
Moving on, you write: "It seems to me that we are back in the inevitable problem of words... What does it mean that the brain chooses to not pay attention to something?"
I'm not sure that's relevant at this particular stage in your reply. What IS relevant is that neuroscientists strongly contend that neglect absolutely does NOT involve any kind of blindness. Full and complete vision in both visual fields is always possible with these patients, and such full, normal vision can occur in various circumstances.
You then add: "Does the brain have agency? Obviously not!"
Please don't go down that road! You will notice that when I anthropomorphized the brain I used quotation marks! Both Ramachandran and I were using metaphor to try to get across some otherwise hard to communicate concepts. Please don't base a counter-argument on something as insubstantial as the use of idiom and metaphor.
You continue: "The brain doesn't choose to neglect the left... its just that probably, from what I can gather, the modules in the right brain that are responsible for much of our spatial coordination, as the left is for language, are somewhat non-functional."
That is not correct. While it's true that the word "choose" is an anthropomorphization and therefore is not technically accurate, what you must understand is that the essential elements of primary human vision -- the eyes, the optic nerves, and the primary visual cortex -- are working perfectly! Also, there is nothing at all wrong with these patients' language processing, so that's out too. What's most relevant here is that these patients are NOT blind in any way! Their brains simply neglect on half of their visual fields. And since we know that hemineglect is NOT restricted to the left, we can be certain that your hypotheses about right and left brain functions CANNOT be correct.
You then write: "It seems to me that when Rama says:
"No, not blind. She just doesn't pay attention to what's on her left. That's why we call it neglect" [instead of blindness].
... he is complicating the issue, and also stating the false. First of all "she" doesn't do anything. If anything we should learn from this that the brain decides what will come into "attention."
He is NOT complicating the issue, nor is he "stating the false"! Again you are basing an argument on nothing more than his use of metaphor, which is not a fruitful path to take. Is there a significant difference in Ramachandran's specific context between "she" and "her brain" from his neurological perspective? Absolutely not!
You then go on: "She is not blind? When he doesn't wiggle his finger she has no clue right?"
No, she is NOT blind!! Why are you being so adamant about insisting that she actually is blind and that Ramachandran is lying? (i.e., "stating the false"?) IF SHE WERE ACTUALLY BLIND IN HER LEFT VISUAL FIELD, SHE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING THERE, NO MATTER WHAT WAS THERE! That would be blindness! Furthermore, she has EVERY "clue" as far as her physiological perception goes, but her brain simply IGNORES what's in her left visual field most of the time. She is NOT blind!
Please read this carefully (you would have noticed this if you read that chapter of Phantoms in the Brain more carefully, I think):
Ellen fails to notice the left side of her face... And not surprisingly, she even ignores all the food on the left side of her plate. But when her son points to things in the neglected area, forcing her to pay attention, Ellen might say, "Oh, how nice. Fresh-squeezed orange juice!" or "How embarrassing. My lipstick is crooked and my hair [is] unkempt."So not only does that PROVE that she is not blind in any way, shape, or form, it also proves you are mistaken when you write: "Obviously the part of her brain that takes care of static objects in the left visual field are damaged, and not the parts that take care of agents." For her orange juice is certainly static!
Vines, why are you speculating so grandiosely but phrasing your assertions with such utter certainty (i.e, claiming that your wild speculations are "obvious")? Your hypothesis sounds to me to be pretty near impossible! What's more, it directly contradicts what Ramachandran says. If there was the kind of damage you allege, the patients would not recover so quickly and spontaneously! I don't think Ramachandran specified this explicitly, but considering her perfect vision of her perfectly stationary and static orange juice when it is brought to her notice, we can safely assume that when the patient's focus is drawn to the wiggling finger, she sees everything else in that part of her visual field ALSO! So your assertion does not seem so "obvious" after all. (And your talk of "agents" strikes me as rather speculative and fanciful. Is the claim of "agents" one of Pinker's assertions? Can you point me to a site on the Net about these alleged "agents"?)
You go on making assertions that you cannot know to be true, at least not with the level of certainty you project, all the while saying everything is "obvious". I find that very difficult to get past, I'm afraid.
Let me assure you that -- even if your assertions are true -- they are most assuredly NOT "obvious". Certainly not to me, anyway. Where is your evidence that relates to hemineglect specifically? You used such heavy jargon and failed to adequately explain what you were trying to say at times. I'm sorry, Vines, but I found the rest of your post rather strained. At the very least, I feel you need to explain your positions more clearly and simply -- with less jargon, please.
With perplexity but also with continuing respect,- Martin
Modified by Martin at Mon, Aug 26, 2002, 18:00:45
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A response Re: Re: Blindness and qualia (revised) -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
08/30/2002, 10:56:37
Author Profile Mail author
Thank you for your reply. I must say that I find myself quite troubled by your attention to the way I present my thoughts and less to the content. You seem to care much about the fact that I present my ideas as “obvious” and “certain.” That is my style, and I am sorry if it doesn’t fit in with your expectations, but that is the way I state what I firmly believe to be true. If you don’t agree with what I state that is fine, you can tell me why and I will reflect on your comments and I have no problem changing my views if I feel change is warranted. So, my language does not indicate rigidity. It is simply a style of expression that works for me, and I don’t think I am in a scientific arena that requires me to state things differently. I think it is quite OBVIOUS to all that my ideas are mine, and what is obvious to me may not be to others.
To your response... Thanks first of all, for the information and for the reasoning. I think there are many things that I have not been clear on and which you consequently misunderstood, as well as others I think you are just plain mistaken on.
The main problem with Pinker's, Tooby's, and Cosmides' approach is that, no matter how far it progresses, by its very nature of focusing on computation and massive modularity, it both ignores and cannot address the most important and interesting mysteries, questions, and aspects of cognition and Consciousness. As I've thought all along (and Ramachandran apparently agrees), there has to be some kind -- or a few kinds -- of global "overseer" that Pinker's, et. al., approach cannot accommodate.
First of all, as I will state on my response to Ferdie’s post, Evolutionary Psychologists do not all argue for the idea of massive modularity, if by this you mean “innate.” Pinker does not argue the need for a specific, dedicated module for every product of the mind, and if Tooby and Cosmides do, I am not aware of that. If by massive modularity you do not refer only to innate modules, but also refer to acquired programming, or plastic aspects of the brain acquiring certain modular functions, then I disagree entirely with what you are saying. I believe that mind functions are governed by modules, or circuits in the brain that work in connection with other bodily functions, and that all these form an intricate network. In essence the foundational structure upon which the network is built is innate, selected through evolutionary processes, and integrates the brain and all other homeostatic functions the brain regulates.
I don’t believe learning is undirected. I believe all learning is biased by the functioning of modules.
Can computation address the issue of Consciousness? No, but I think it will, and most certainly your assertion that it cannot is foundationless, if you refer also to future prospects; and you also offer no explanation for your conclusions, as Fodor also does not.
I think you should clarify what this “global overseer” function is, for it sounds much like Cartesian theater to me, but I doubt that is what you meant. Most of all, after you explain what this is, could you tell me why exactly Pinker’s, et. al, approach could not accommodate it?
Martin:
[You write: "The idea that human behavior is the consequence of evolution is IMO right on. To look for what we are outside of our evolutionary heritage is off track entirely."While I do not deny that evolution is very critical to understanding human behavior, I must say that I have doubts that all of human behavior is the direct consequence of evolution (at least as it is generally understood in terms of selection and adaptation, and certainly not in terms of the evolution of a single organ on its own). To put it another way, I think that while a very great deal of human behavior can be best explained in terms of evolution and gene selection, I am increasingly skeptical that it can explain it all.]
This is your misunderstanding. I stated “human behavior is the consequence of evolution.” I did not state that it was the direct consequence as you have assumed. It is a common notion throughout the literature of EP that a module can address types of data for which it was not selected for in the first place. There is no reason to assume, as both you and Fodor do, that EP states that ALL BEHAVIOR is believed to be the DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of evolution. That is simply not true.
Martin:
[As Fodor remarks in the article Fer-de-lance cited, there is a huge qualitative gap between chimpanzee vs human cognition and behavior, but- there are only small differences in neuroanatomy. While neither I nor Fodor believes the mechanism for the difference is not natural (i.e, we both assign zero credibility to ideas like Creationism and/or "Intelligent Design"), evolution may not be the explanation for all of the difference (nor can I credit "emergent properties" playing a significant role), so to "look for what we are outside of our evolutionary heritage" may not be so entirely off track after all. Now, you may reply (as you did below) that merely doubting something is not useful or relevant, but I am a skeptic and that is our nature!]Your skepticism is motivated by what? That is what I am interested in. It is the same objection I stated toward Fodor. He claims skepticism too, but his rebuttals are off base and founded on what I believe to be misconceptions, basically assuming that neuroscience cannot by its nature explain the mind, and that the two should be separate. He claims to have demonstrated the fallacies of EP but he does no such thing beyond the boundaries of his own beliefs, that sound more like philosophical rantings than science.
Martin:
[You write: "I think these three scientists (Tooby, Cosmides, and Pinker)have truly shed much light on aspects of human behavior by associating behavior to the possible evolutionary scenarios that could have caused their emergence." I tend to agree, but when for example I read Fodor's compelling arguments showing the fatal weaknesses in their assertions and reasoning on, for example, the so-called "cheater detection module", I am forced to wonder.]I don’t know what he says about the cheater module, but based on what I read in the article, I find his reasoning far from compelling, and actually quite limited. I don’t mean to sound presumptuous, but I think the fatal weaknesses are more in Fodor’s misconceptions than in the topics he purports to analyze.
Martin:
[(Fodor proves, using a strict logical analysis, that the prevailing argument from EP about the "cheater detection module" is not logically valid, and further that the experiments designed to demonstrate the existence of this alleged "module" are logically, semantically, and methodologically flawed). But keep in mind that Fodor is NOT arguing (nor am I) that their work wasn't valuable and did not produce important insights, only that it's underlying assumptions and theoretical foundation are weaker than generally assumed and are of only limited relevance to the genuine mysteries of cognition and Consciousness.]Considering the thorough nature of this particular aspect of EP’s experimentation, and what I have read of Fodor’s so far, I can’t but doubt Fodor proves anything of the sort.
Martin:
[But then we come to a point about which I must very strongly disagree! You write: "Fodor, can argue against Pinker, or whoever he wants about how the mind works in his opinion, but if he really wants to provide something useful he needs to stop begging the question and start telling us WHY the mind works the way it does."I could not disagree more strenuously! Do you honestly mean to assert that the role of "Devil's advocate" in science is mere "question begging"??? Or that it's not extremely valuable? We would certainly part company on that point! I can't think any MORE valuable role of philosophy in science than to point out theoretical and philosophical weaknesses! One does NOT need to know the "right" answer to expose the weaknesses and flaws in the proffered answers. Fodor is performing an incredibly valuable service to the advancement of that science!]
The point of the matter is that Fodor does NOT play devil’s advocate. To do that, he would have to show that Pinker’s ideas are wrong, which he doesn’t do. He just states that Pinker’s ideas are probably wrong, and draws conclusions from within the framework of his own ideas and conceptions. Since he is unable to transcend the limitations of his own conclusions, he provides no real insight to me.
Martin:
[Furthermore, Fodor is pointing out conceptual and theoretical and philosophical problems that Pinker, et. al., either ignore entirely or are confused or mistaken about.]Actually, he points out problems that arise from the integration of Pinker’s ideas into his peculiar views of how the mind works. He definitely identifies no conceptual or theoretical problems that are substantial beyond the problem already recognized by Pinker, namely that of being unable to currently explain the phenomenon of experience. It seems that all of EP’s critics always end up gravitating toward the one sure argument they know can’t be addressed: qualia.
Martin:
[You later write: "I find Evolutionary Psychology to be very good when focusing on the 'why,' but highly insufficient when attempting to address the 'how.'"That may well be true, but speaking personally, I keep growing less and less comfortable with that view all the time. Sociobiology is so powerful and is so relatively resilient to criticism because it does not speculate too far beyond the observable facts or go into overly speculative details.]
It was not my objective to point out the weaknesses of socio-biology, nor to try to emphasize its failures, to be identified IMO exactly in what you praised. What you consider speculation is analogous to the creationists’ argument against paleontology.
Martin:
[It's province is general human nature, not an attempt at a specific accounting for the details of human behavior. But it's offspring, evolutionary psychology, does in fact often go far beyond the observations into some precarious speculations with rather detailed and specific hypotheses and assertions. Even though I am a strong advocate of sociobiology, I've always been more leery of evolutionary psychology precisely because it seems so very speculative -- in regard to both "how" AND "why" (in my opinion).]I’m sorry but I disagree with you regarding what EP is. EP does not give an accounting in evolutionary terms for detailed human behavior. This is similar to the misunderstanding you had toward my idea above where you interpreted “consequence” as “direct consequence,” as if they were the same. EP does not give “specific accounting” for behavior, it theorizes regarding the possible evolutionary pressures that caused certain instincts to emerge, and how behaviors might be correlated to these ancestral instincts. That is much more general of an approach then what you state for it.
Martin:
[Don't get me wrong, though: I still contend that understanding human psychology is impossible without taking human evolution very substantially into account, but I think that EP's tendency to try to explain too much about psychology too soon may be jeopardizing it's credibility.]Well you have lost Fodor there because he states that evolution and mind don’t fit in without massive modularity in the picture, so he rejects entirely the idea of evolution bringing about the mind.- - -
Martin:
[Moving on, you write: "It seems to me that we are back in the inevitable problem of words... What does it mean that the brain chooses to not pay attention to something?"I'm not sure that's relevant at this particular stage in your reply. What IS relevant is that neuroscientists strongly contend that neglect absolutely does NOT involve any kind of blindness. Full and complete vision in both visual fields is always possible with these patients, and such full, normal vision can occur in various circumstances.]
I argue that it is very relevant. When do you experience sight, Martin? When you “see.” What if you are unable to experience sight for one reason or another, do you “see” anymore? Your strict definition of blindness is problematic to me. I don’t care that neuroscientists contend that neglect doesn’t involve blindness because they are contending a concept of blindness that I do not accept. What purpose does sight have if I cannot experience it? When you think about that, you will come to understand what I mean by blindness.
Martin:
[You continue: "The brain doesn't choose to neglect the left... its just that probably, from what I can gather, the modules in the right brain that are responsible for much of our spatial coordination, as the left is for language, are somewhat non-functional."That is not correct. While it's true that the word "choose" is an anthropomorphization and therefore is not technically accurate, what you must understand is that the essential elements of primary human vision -- the eyes, the optic nerves, and the primary visual cortex -- are working perfectly!]
Why do I have to understand something I never argued against?
[Also, there is nothing at all wrong with these patients' language processing, so that's out too.]
Who said there was? I said that the right brain was probably damaged (responsible for spatial analysis, as the left is for language).
[What's most relevant here is that these patients are NOT blind in any way!]
Then what do you call not being able to experience sight at certain times? I call it intermittent blindness in my book, though blindness has nothing to do with damage to eyes, optical nerve, or primary visual cortex, but rather to analytical modules, I believe, in the right brain.
[Their brains simply neglect on half of their visual fields. And since we know that hemineglect is NOT restricted to the left, we can be certain that your hypotheses about right and left brain functions CANNOT be correct.]
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
Martin:
[You then write: "It seems to me that when Rama says:"No, not blind. She just doesn't pay attention to what's on her left. That's why we call it neglect" [instead of blindness].
... he is complicating the issue, and also stating the false. First of all "she" doesn't do anything. If anything we should learn from this that the brain decides what will come into "attention."
He is NOT complicating the issue, nor is he "stating the false"! Again you are basing an argument on nothing more than his use of metaphor, which is not a fruitful path to take. Is there a significant difference in Ramachandran's specific context between "she" and "her brain" from his neurological perspective? Absolutely not!]
Let’s set things straight. Rama says that she’s not blind, its just that the brain is not paying attention to the left visual field. I am not arguing against his choice of words, but against what they communicate.
He IS saying that she is not conscious of what is in the left visual field. He doesn’t say it specifically in those terms, to his discredit IMO, but that is the essence of it. So the issue to me becomes, when is a person blind? If having sight equates to being able to EXPERIENCE SIGHT then these people are intermittently blind.
Martin:
[You then go on: "She is not blind? When he doesn't wiggle his finger she has no clue right?"No, she is NOT blind!! Why are you being so adamant about insisting that she actually is blind and that Ramachandran is lying? (i.e., "stating the false"?) IF SHE WERE ACTUALLY BLIND IN HER LEFT VISUAL FIELD, SHE COULD NOT SEE ANYTHING THERE, NO MATTER WHAT WAS THERE!]
That absolutely does not follow. I see blindness as degrees of experience of sight. If she is unable to experience sight to some degree, then she is blind to some degree. I think this problem stems from the fact that functionality is not collocated within its proper experiential frame. Functional eyes are useless without consciousness of sight as far as being able to “see” is concerned, or experiencing sight. The same is valid for cortical blindness, a permanent and constant type of blindness that has nothing to do with the eyes being dysfunctional. You can have perfectly functional eyes and optic nerves and not be able to see because of damage to the visual cortex. The data is never codified into qualia, and is never experienced.
Martin:
[That would be blindness! Furthermore, she has EVERY "clue" as far as her physiological perception goes, but her brain simply IGNORES what's in her left visual field most of the time. She is NOT blind!]We will have to agree to disagree. I would have expected, frankly, a wider take on what sight actually is. Physiological aspects pertaining to the sense organs are not all there is to the experience of sight, and this sort of rigidity is damaging to the actual discovery of an answer to the problem of consciousness.
Martin:
[Ellen fails to notice the left side of her face... And not surprisingly, she even ignores all the food on the left side of her plate. But when her son points to things in the neglected area, forcing her to pay attention, Ellen might say, "Oh, how nice. Fresh-squeezed orange juice!" or "How embarrassing. My lipstick is crooked and my hair [is] unkempt."So not only does that PROVE that she is not blind in any way, shape, or form, it also proves you are mistaken when you write: "Obviously the part of her brain that takes care of static objects in the left visual field are damaged, and not the parts that take care of agents." For her orange juice is certainly static!]
You flat out state the false unintentionally. Let me direct you for a second here… When Ellen has the Doctor’s steady finger in her left visual field doesn’t the doctor ask her what she sees? Isn’t he calling her attention to it? SHE SEES NOTHING, or she is not able to consciously discern anything. He called her attention to it didn’t he?
What you do not state is what it means for her to pay attention in the orange juice context. Paying attention in this case probably meant scanning the object, or causing it to be analyzed by both cerebral hemispheres. This is apparent to me, though not stated, perhaps because of my having waded through the accounts of numerous flawed experiments. The son certainly did not keep the “static” orange juice out of her right visual field, or out of the part of the left eye that is processed by the left cerebral hemisphere, and hence she quickly scanned the object and became conscious of it, something that she couldn’t do when the Doctor kept his finger steady ONLY in her left visual field. You didn’t connect this data, and concluded erroneously what you did.
Martin:
[Vines, why are you speculating so grandiosely but phrasing your assertions with such utter certainty (i.e, claiming that your wild speculations are "obvious")?]Because that’s how I talk.
Martin:
[Your hypothesis sounds to me to be pretty near impossible!]In what way, and which hypothesis are you talking about?
Martin:
[What's more, it directly contradicts what Ramachandran says. If there was the kind of damage you allege, the patients would not recover so quickly and spontaneously!]That has nothing to do with it, and is not true. Transient aphasias, and transient problems of all kind are very common when strokes occur. Brain function, particularly correlating to the ability of various neural populations to fire in synchrony can be disrupted for some time, leading to lack of experience, and then, for some reason, they start their harmonious firing again, and functionality resumes.
Martin:
[I don't think Ramachandran specified this explicitly, but considering her perfect vision of her perfectly stationary and static orange juice when it is brought to her notice, we can safely assume that when the patient's focus is drawn to the wiggling finger, she sees everything else in that part of her visual field ALSO! So your assertion does not seem so "obvious" after all]Ramachandran does not state that, and based on what I said above, I believe your error stems from not connecting all the information that was at your disposal. Consider what I said previously and see if your train of thought still holds for you.
Martin:
[…your talk of "agents" strikes me as rather speculative and fanciful. Is the claim of "agents" one of Pinker's assertions? Can you point me to a site on the Net about these alleged "agents"?]No actually, my thinking in regards is intuitive, though similar concepts were expressed in relation to religion by Boyer. I believe to have read that brain scans show different cerebral site activation when stationary and moving objects are observed. I’ll look it up.
Martin;
[Where is your evidence that relates to hemineglect specifically? You used such heavy jargon and failed to adequately explain what you were trying to say at times. I'm sorry, Vines, but I found the rest of your post rather strained. At the very least, I feel you need to explain your positions more clearly and simply -- with less jargon, please.]I apologize for the lack of clarity. Much of what I stated correlates to my studies aimed at analyzing the fallacious conclusions arrived at by Roger Sperry in analyzing split brain patients, and related literature.
In conclusion, and I’ll have a lot to say about Fodor’s article, I think you jump the gun throughout, without really trying to understand my positions. In regards to hemineglect in essence I can say that my position is that hemi-neglect is a semi or intermittent lack of visual experience in consciousness, and hence is an intermittent ability to see.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: A response Re: A response -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
08/30/2002, 18:59:41
Author Profile Mail author
Your "response" (like your previous one) is filled with pompous and fatuous doubletalk and unwarranted accusations to the effect that Ramachandran and I are fools and liars!
Your repeated refusals to face facts and your continual insinuations that YOU are unquestionably right and Ramachandran and I are ignorant is so delusional I'm very sorry I even bothered with your ludicrous posts!
What a waste!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Aug 30, 2002, 19:11:10
|