Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

neurosciencenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#71

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

MichaelBurge wrote: post #61
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, just having someone tell you something doesn't prove anything, unless you have a way to check that the fact is true- and for most of Kim Peek's life this was not the case. For instance- his article on wikipedia mentions that he " enjoyed approaching strangers and showing them his talent for calendar calculations by telling them on which day of the week they were born and what news items were on the fro…

You'd probably get a better discussion from a place like http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ .

I've tried skeptics-stackexchange but I was not convinced by the arguments.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#72

Post by ajkjk »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #68
ajkjk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're that skeptical, shouldn't your first step be looking up more details on how he was verified to be legitimate? Rather than saying in a comment thread that there's no way to know?

I had a look on wikipedia. There is a section on some "tests" conducted by NASA, but "the intent was to create a three-dimensional view of his brain structure and to compare the images to MRI scans done in 1988". That doesn't tell me much about why they thought he had an interesting enough brain to try to image, i.e. why they were convinced he was a savant. Does your comment mean you know why NASA (and others, I gues…

No, I just wonder why you came in here doubting it. It's so unlikely that nobody ever thought to check. It's not impossible, but it's certainly unlikely.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#73

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

c3534l wrote: post #51
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My problem with that sort of demonstration of amazing memory powers is that I have no way to check the sports scores on the day I was born as quickly as the person who says they're retrieving them from memory does so. Even if I could just google them (there might be some online sports results archive or something- it would still not mean much unless I could find an identical copy of the exact listing the mnemonist me…

Kim Peek was an extremely well documented individual. That he retained seemingly inhuman amounts of information is not under dispute, even though such charlatans do exist.

The problem is that I'm well aware that charlatans do exist [1] but I've no idea why you say that his skils are not under dispute. Does this mean you know of some sort of test, some demonstration in controlled conditions etc? I'd like to see it, too, please.

Edit: How was he well-documented? Where is that documentation?

___________________

[1] See (or rather, avoid seeing) here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3305206/Five-year-ol...

Five-year-old savant from LA who displays signs of being telepathic - and is already learning seven languages - is being studied by scientists after his mother filmed him 'reciting numbers written in secret'

  + Ramses Sanguino, aged five, was filmed seemingly displaying telepathy
  + He correctly recounted numbers that were written down 'out of eyesight' 
  + Videos were posted online and attracted the attention of a neuroscientist
  + Ramses is now part of a cutting-edge telepathy study by Dr Diane Powell
  + His mother insists the footage of her autistic son's 'talents' is not trickery
Not just a savant, but a telepath to boot. And there's a neuroscientist involved.

Look, it's not my fault that a lot of that stuff about savants is a bunch of hooey. If that guy, the original Rain Man, was legit, and we know for a fact he was legit, I want to know why it is that we know it.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#74

Post by xg15 »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #57
thereisnospork wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By asking for details from a set of arbitrary, random dates, such as people's birthdays. A set of dates the questionee could have no way of knowing. In order for him to know the answer to trivia on multiple arbitrary dates off the cuff would require him to, you know, have memorized the trivia for all the dates -- which kind of proves the point.

Unfortunately, just having someone tell you something doesn't prove anything, unless you have a way to check that the fact is true- and for most of Kim Peek's life this was not the case. For instance- his article on wikipedia mentions that he " enjoyed approaching strangers and showing them his talent for calendar calculations by telling them on which day of the week they were born and what news items were on the fro…

Why is it so important that the person check the facts the instant the demonstration is done as opposed to taking the time and checking them later (e.g. by going to a newspaper's archive)?

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#75

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

ajkjk wrote: post #72
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a look on wikipedia. There is a section on some "tests" conducted by NASA, but "the intent was to create a three-dimensional view of his brain structure and to compare the images to MRI scans done in 1988". That doesn't tell me much about why they thought he had an interesting enough brain to try to image, i.e. why they were convinced he was a savant. Does your comment mean you know why NASA (and others, I gues…

No, I just wonder why you came in here doubting it. It's so unlikely that nobody ever thought to check . It's not impossible, but it's certainly unlikely.

What do you mean "why I came in here"? I post here very frequently.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#76

Post by xg15 »

Not a neuroscientist here, so this is just layman's rambling thoughts, but I wonder if that much direct communication between the brain hemispheres were actually needed to appear as a single consciousness:

As I understand it, a large part of how the brain develops is "learning" both about the environment and about the intricacies of one's own body.

There is no engineer who calibrates the brain to work with the particular weight distribution of one's arms or the particular optical properties of one's eyes. Instead, the brain "self-calibrates" through a sort of trial-and-error process (and some deep learning magic I imagine).

The two brain hemispheres are still sitting in the same skull for the entirety of one's lifetime - so even if they were not connected at all, they are still subject to the same environmental stimuli and might come to very similar "calibrations". So the appearance of a unified consciousness might come from the two hemispheres "thinking the same way", while also being subjected to the same stimuli.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#77

Post by Broken_Hippo »

ajkjk wrote: post #72
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a look on wikipedia. There is a section on some "tests" conducted by NASA, but "the intent was to create a three-dimensional view of his brain structure and to compare the images to MRI scans done in 1988". That doesn't tell me much about why they thought he had an interesting enough brain to try to image, i.e. why they were convinced he was a savant. Does your comment mean you know why NASA (and others, I gues…

No, I just wonder why you came in here doubting it. It's so unlikely that nobody ever thought to check . It's not impossible, but it's certainly unlikely.

to YeGoblynQueenne:

What do you mean "why I came in here"? I post here very frequently.

Likely mid-western colliquial (I'm from Indiana). It means that you originally posted with the sole thought of doubting it. It has no bearing on how often you are there.

For example, a regular at a bar might get told one day, "You came in here looking for a fight!" - it speaks of intentions, not frequency.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#78

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

xg15 wrote: post #74
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, just having someone tell you something doesn't prove anything, unless you have a way to check that the fact is true- and for most of Kim Peek's life this was not the case. For instance- his article on wikipedia mentions that he " enjoyed approaching strangers and showing them his talent for calendar calculations by telling them on which day of the week they were born and what news items were on the fro…

Why is it so important that the person check the facts the instant the demonstration is done as opposed to taking the time and checking them later (e.g. by going to a newspaper's archive)?

Because by the time you get the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the "recall", it's too late to challenge the mentalist about it. That's how those tricks (when they're tricks) work.

Imagine it like this: say you're at some mentalist's show, and she picks you out of the crowd. She asks you your birthdate, you tell her, she concentrates (silence in the audience) then suddendly she starts riffing off headlines from that day's newspapers. Why, she can even remember the crossword hints from the Times of Pallookaville! And even their answers! (well just one of them but-) Music! Lights! The audience clap their hands! The mentalist moves on to the next target.

Did you, at any point during all that, have any chance to challenge the accuracy of the mentalist's recall? Not really. Would you do it even if you could? Most people will dread so much being the asshat that ruins the show everyone paid to watch, that they'd never say anything, even if they had a tattoo of that damned crossword on their butt, solved and done.

And does it make any difference if you go back to your house and google the information and it's all made up? What 'you gonna do? Call up each one of those 1200 people who watched the show and tell them the mentalist is a fraud? 'Course it's a fraud. It's entertainment!

That's one setting and it's a bit formal, like, but ceteris paribus, the same goes for any situation where someone is pulling that sort of trick on you- the whole trick is to move fast and not give the mark time to think and react.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#79

Post by delegate »

A study of consciousness which doesn't include psychedelics is very limited.

Studying consciousness by looking at the brain is like trying to figure out where a car goes by studying the mechanics of the car.

Yes, the car moves because the engine transmits power to the wheels and makes them spin, ..., but that's just 50% of the answer.

The other (true) reason it moves is because the human driver wants to get from A to B.

So just ask the driver !

Of course that would require accommodating the idea that there is a driver - something outside the brain which is part of consciousness, which quickly leads to the study of what exactly is outside and inside and so on.

Lots of answers and even more useful questions can be extracted from the study of psychedelics.

Luckily I've seen that the ice has started to melt and more and more studies are underway, so we're going to see major breakthroughs in the field this century.

Re: Split Brain Does Not Lead to Split Consciousness

#80

Post by closed »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #57
thereisnospork wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By asking for details from a set of arbitrary, random dates, such as people's birthdays. A set of dates the questionee could have no way of knowing. In order for him to know the answer to trivia on multiple arbitrary dates off the cuff would require him to, you know, have memorized the trivia for all the dates -- which kind of proves the point.

Unfortunately, just having someone tell you something doesn't prove anything, unless you have a way to check that the fact is true- and for most of Kim Peek's life this was not the case. For instance- his article on wikipedia mentions that he " enjoyed approaching strangers and showing them his talent for calendar calculations by telling them on which day of the week they were born and what news items were on the fro…

> but it seems to me like he made a living out of his skills

People are downvoting you, maybe for manner in which you're expressing skepticism, but a lot of the issues you bring up are a constant concern in psychology. For example,

1. Clever hans, a horse that was supposed to answer people's questions, turned out to just be responding to auditory/visual cues (seeing people gasp).

2. In the book, Mind of a Mnemonist, the author documents a guy who uses a memory technique to remember a lot of information. However, the guy also plays up the idea of his having synesthesia (crossing of perceptual modalities, like "hearing" visual things, etc..). The author is concerned that some of the things the guy says are motivated by his desire to make a living as a performer.

3. A lot of cases, like Kim Peek, raise the same concerns about the person being made larger than life, for whatever reason. Or the person having learned (whether intentional or not) some very specific skill for remember certain types of information. With practice, a person can learn to memorize phonebooks pretty quickly.

Often it's clear that people are exhibiting exceptional memory, but teasing apart the exceptional bits among media hype, people having a lot of unaccounted study time, and past accounts gets pretty tricky.

Post reply on HN