One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
1–10 of 92 posts
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#2Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#3The confabulation to justify picking out related images that the left brain never observed (chicken and snow shovel in the article) reminds me profoundly of the confident slop produced by LLMs. Make you wonder if llms might be one half of the "brain" of a true AGI
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#4The confabulation to justify picking out related images that the left brain never observed (chicken and snow shovel in the article) reminds me profoundly of the confident slop produced by LLMs. Make you wonder if llms might be one half of the "brain" of a true AGI
along those lines, maybe dreaming is piecing together new adventures imagined from snippets of reality.
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#5The confabulation to justify picking out related images that the left brain never observed (chicken and snow shovel in the article) reminds me profoundly of the confident slop produced by LLMs. Make you wonder if llms might be one half of the "brain" of a true AGI
That's a theme in the novel "Neuromancer".
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#6I disagree with Steven Pinker’s claim that consciousness arises from the brain.
This perspective fails to establish that the brain produces consciousness, as it relies on the mistaken assumption that "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable. While brain activity may influence the mind, consciousness itself could be a more fundamental aspect of reality. Rather than generating consciousness, the brain might function like a radio, merely receiving and processing information from an all-pervasive field of consciousness.
In this view, a split-brain condition would not create two separate consciousnesses but instead allow access to two distinct streams of an already-existing, universal consciousness.
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#7Related: You Are Two by GCP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8>
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#8I disagree with Steven Pinker’s claim that consciousness arises from the brain. This perspective fails to establish that the brain produces consciousness, as it relies on the mistaken assumption that "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable. While brain activity may influence the mind, consciousness itself could be a more fundamental aspect of reality. Rather than generating consciousness, the brain might funct…
Descartes was pretty much on the same page.
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#9I disagree with Steven Pinker’s claim that consciousness arises from the brain. This perspective fails to establish that the brain produces consciousness, as it relies on the mistaken assumption that "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable. While brain activity may influence the mind, consciousness itself could be a more fundamental aspect of reality. Rather than generating consciousness, the brain might funct…
I cannot see how one might perform an experiment to determine which concept is correct. As with most things which are unfalsifiable, the idea can be amusing for a bit but is ultimately not useful to the extent that you can do anything about it. You cannot serve tea from Russell's Teapot.
Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)
#10I disagree with Steven Pinker’s claim that consciousness arises from the brain. This perspective fails to establish that the brain produces consciousness, as it relies on the mistaken assumption that "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable. While brain activity may influence the mind, consciousness itself could be a more fundamental aspect of reality. Rather than generating consciousness, the brain might funct…
It's not Steven Pinker's claim alone. Gazzaniga agrees, I think, and I know of one other prominent neuroscientist but don't remember his name. Pinker is "just" a psychologist.
(Edit: Michael Graziano is who I was trying to remember - he uses the words "schematic" and "model")
Your view is called "pan-psychism". It's interesting, but there isn't anything that makes it necessary. Everything we're finding out is that most or all thinking happens outside of consciousness, and the results bubble up into it as perception. Consciousness does seem to be universal within the brain, though.
I find pan-psychism interesting just because of its popularity - people want something spiritual, knowingly or not. I would advise not to insist that consciousness==soul, however, as neuroscience seems to be rapidly converging on a more mundane view of consciousness. It's best to think of one's "true" self according to the maxim that there is much more to you than meets the mind's eye.