Live data from Hacker News

One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

theatlantic.com

11–20 of 92 posts

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#11

I 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…

Yep, some unfinished philosophy if you're into it: you can imagine that our universe at a moment of time has is just a giant geometric shape, then at the next moment the universe somehow changes into the this new shape. How does this change happen? Some believe it's a computation according to a rule/s, some that it's not a discrete change but a continuous equation that changed the shape of the universe from one to another. Basically you can imagine the whole universe as a long-exposure photography in 3d and then there is some process that "forgets" almost all of it leaving only slim slices of geometry and changing from one slice into another. This forgetting of the current slice and "recalling" the next, is consciousness, the time-like process. And it looks like the Big Bang was like matter converted to energy (or "space converted to time") process. The final falling into a giant black hole will be the reverse: energy converted to matter (or "time converted to space"). Some say electrons are like small black holes, so we potentially experience the infinitesimal qualia of coming into existence and coming out of existence, because we are sufficiently "time-like" and not too much "space-like". I'll soon write a blog post ;)

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#12

I 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…

If consciousness doesn't arise from the brain, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the brain.

I think consciousness arises from the brain.

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#13

I 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…

If consciousness doesn't arise from the brain, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the brain. I think consciousness arises from the brain.

"If the music I dance to doesn't arise from the radio, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the radio.

I think the music I dance arises from the radio."

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If consciousness doesn't arise from the brain, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the brain. I think consciousness arises from the brain.

"If the music I dance to doesn't arise from the radio, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the radio. I think the music I dance arises from the radio."

Well, it must all come from a singularity some time before the Big Bang.

Yet, when I turn the radio on, music really does seem to come out of it.

And when I turn the radio off, the music stops (for me, but not for you).

Without the radio there is no sound, but the radio needs a signal.

Does the radio make the music? Quite an interesting metaphor.

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If consciousness doesn't arise from the brain, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the brain. I think consciousness arises from the brain.

"If the music I dance to doesn't arise from the radio, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the radio. I think the music I dance arises from the radio."

Note that in this scenario, we’ve never even heard of radio stations or radio waves before.

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#16

The 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

confident slop.

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#17

I 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…

If consciousness doesn't arise from the brain, it seems to be suspiciously well correlated with the brain. I think consciousness arises from the brain.

> I think consciousness arises from the brain.

I tend to agree, but it doesn't fully explain Benj Hellie's vertiginous question [1]. Everyone seems to have brains, but for some reason only I am me.

If we were able to make an atom-by-atom accurate replica of your brain (and optionally your body, too), with all the memories intact, would you suddenly start seeing the world from two different pair of eyes at the same time? If no, why? What would make you (the original) different from your replica?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#18

I 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 mo…

Or, people are spiritual, and realize it to different degrees. It's very easy to get confused about what we know and don't know on these subjects.

Re: One Head, Two Brains: The origins of split-brain research (2015)

#20

The 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

It certainly looks like what LLMs are doing is one aspect of what a brain is doing.
Post reply on HN