A revolution in thought - Page 1396

peacegirl · #**34876** 01-21-2014, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

But wait—I hear a serious objection. There is no question that the macroscopic world of human experience is built on the microscopic, quantum world. Yet that does not imply that everyday objects such as cars inherit all the weird properties of quantum mechanics. When I park my red Mini convertible, it has zero velocity relative to the pavement. Because it is enormously heavy compared with an electron, the fuzziness associated with its position is, to all intents and purposes, zero.

Cars have comparatively simple internal structures. The brains of bees, beagles and boys, by comparison, are vastly more heterogeneous, and the components out of which they are constructed have a noisy character. Randomness is apparent everywhere in their nervous system, from sensory neurons picking up sights and smells to motor neurons controlling the body’s muscles. We cannot rule out the possibility that quantum indeterminacy likewise leads to behavioral indeterminacy.

Such randomness may play a functional role. If a housefly pursued by a predator makes a sudden, abrupt turn midflight, it is more likely to see the light of another day than its more predictable companion. Thus, evolution might favor circuits that exploit quantum randomness for certain acts or decisions. Both quantum mechanics and deterministic chaos lead to unpredictable outcomes.

How Physics and Neuroscience Dictate Your "Free" Will - Scientific American

Quote:

There are conceptual issues — and then there is semantics. "What would really help is if scientists and philosophers could come to an agreement on what free will means," says Glannon. Even within philosophy, definitions of free will don't always match up. Some philosophers define it as the ability to make rational decisions in the absence of coercion. Some definitions place it in cosmic context: at the moment of decision, given everything that's happened in the past, it is possible to reach a different decision. Others stick to the idea that a non-physical 'soul' is directing decisions.

Neuroscience could contribute directly to tidying up definitions, or adding an empirical dimension to them. It might lead to a deeper, better understanding of what freely willing something involves, or refine views of what conscious intention is, says Roskies.

Mele is directing the Templeton Foundation project that is beginning to bring philosophers and neuroscientists together. "I think if we do a new generation of studies with better design, we'll get better evidence about what goes on in the brain when people make decisions," he says. Some informal meetings have already begun. Roskies, who is funded through the programme, plans to spend time this year in the lab of Michael Shadlen, a neurophysiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who works on decision-making in the primate brain. "We're going to hammer on each other until we really understand the other person's point of view, and convince one or other of us that we're wrong," she says.

Haggard has Templeton funding for a project in which he aims to provide a way to objectively determine the timing of conscious decisions and actions, rather than rely on subjective reports. His team plans to devise an experimental set-up in which people play a competitive game against a computer while their brain activity is decoded.

Another project, run by Christof Koch, a bioengineer at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, will use techniques similar to Fried's to examine the responses of individual neurons when people use reason to make decisions. His team hopes to measure how much weight people give to different bits of information when they decide.

Philosophers are willing to admit that neuroscience could one day trouble the concept of free will. Imagine a situation (philosophers like to do this) in which researchers could always predict what someone would decide from their brain activity, before the subject became aware of their decision. "If that turned out to be true, that would be a threat to free will," says Mele. Still, even those who have perhaps prematurely proclaimed the death of free will agree that such results would have to be replicated on many different levels of decision-making. Pressing a button or playing a game is far removed from making a cup of tea, running for president or committing a crime.

Neuroscience vs philosophy: Taking aim at free will : Nature News

These experiments will be interesting for sure, but they will never replicate what my father has discovered since the principle of "greater satisfaction" cannot be identified through the mapping of neural processes.

thedoc · #**34877** 01-21-2014, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

N.B.: This does not mean there's no such thing as conscious decision-making; there is. But a lot of what we think is conscious decision-making is actually after-the-fact rationalization.

There is no doubt that when someone does something that he wants to do but knows others will judge him, or he will judge himself later on, he will look for a rationalization. This does not conflict with Lessans' claim of determinism.

You have totally misunderstood what TLR has posted. This is not the rationalizing that occurs some time later to justify your actions to other people, but an immediate rationalization of the action as it occurs. I just took a drink, which I believe I did because I was thirsty, but there may have been other underlying causes that I was not aware of. It's totally irrelevant what others may think, there is no-one else here. You really don't understand what you read.

The Lone Ranger · #**34878** 01-21-2014, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you remember on what basis he made this claim?

Yeah. He read Durant and thought really hard about it, but never got the bright idea to check any elementary-school-level biology or physics textbooks.

Quote:

Well, one is to prove that dogs cannot recognize their master from a picture, as people here seem to believe.

You are the one making that claim, and you are the one who thinks -- for some incoherent and nonsensical reason -- that it must be the case that dogs cannot recognize humans from photos. There is plenty of evidence that they can as has been explained to you.

And whether or not they can is irrelevant, since it tells us nothing of how sight works. Plenty of people who have suffered damage to the brain's "facial recognition center" are incapable of recognizing faces.

Quote:

Another way is to see if he was right about words because this would mean that this beauty or ugliness is not striking the optic nerve and being interpreted by the brain, as occurs in hearing, smell, taste and touch.

This is gobbledegook.

Quote:

No, I just didn't think it through carefully.

You didn't just slip up. You repeatedly lied about making such a claim.

Quote:

If a bionic eye is just replacement parts, it wouldn't tell us anything about how the brain and eye interact.

Except, as has been pointed out, they're not just "replacement parts." Some of them work by bypassing the non-functional retina entirely. Thus demonstrating that vision works by signals being relayed to the visual cortex via the optic nerve.

Quote:

What do you mean by that? He only made two claims.

Actually, he made quite a lot of claims regarding numerous subjects. Both explicit claims and implicit claims. The eye and optic nerve are not structured the way Lessans thought they were, for example -- as he would have discovered with some elementary research. Literally millions of experiments demonstrate that we do not and cannot see in "real time." And so on, and so on.

Quote:

The worst thing a scientist can do is just ignore a claim if there is any possibility of it being correct.

NO!

The worst thing a scientist can do (not that Lessans was even remotely a scientist) is refuse to admit that a hypothesis has been disproved when the experimental evidence clearly demonstrates that this is the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yeah, most introductory-level texts claim that there are three neurons involved in a typical "conscious' movement. The first-order neuron is in the cerebral cortex (the motor cortex, to be specific). It synapses with a second-order neuron that extends down through the spinal cord. That neuron synapses with a third-order neuron that exits the spinal cord and synapses with a muscle and causes it to contract.

In reality, many of these impulses actually originate in the basal nuclei deep within the cerebrum and other brain centers, and the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain that we think of as "conscious") only receives the impulses after the action has taken place. In short, an awful lot of what we think of as "conscious decision-making" is actually the brain inventing after-the-fact rationalizations for what we've already done.

That may be true, but there are also studies that show before we consciously act on a decision, the brain has already decided for us.

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Quote:

What does N.B. stand for?

Nota bene. Anyone who has done any sort of research at all should be familiar with it.

thedoc · #**34879** 01-21-2014, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Does Peacegirl have a 'Strong Suit' that you are aware of?

Spacemonkey · #**34880** 01-21-2014, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given very good refutations to every objection that has been given.

What a joke. Even you must know that you're lying when you say something this far detached from reality. How many of these were very good refutations?

- Something else must be going on.
- Light can be at the retina on Earth before it gets there.
- All free will is libertarian free will.
- Determinism and hard determinism are the same.
- I don't care how much it looks like Lessans was wrong, I'm going to believe him anyway.
- I give up.

peacegirl · #**34881** 01-21-2014, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you remember on what basis he made this claim?

Yeah. He read Durant and thought really hard about it, but never got the bright idea to check any elementary-school-level biology or physics textbooks.

Quote:

Well, one is to prove that dogs cannot recognize their master from a picture, as people here seem to believe.

You are the one making that claim, and you are the one who thinks -- for some incoherent and nonsensical reason -- that it must be the case that dogs cannot recognize humans from photos. There is plenty of evidence that they can as has been explained to you.

It is not nonsensical Lone Ranger. The evidence that you believe is foolproof is far from it. The experiments that supposedly have statistical significance have to be replicated in other ways. It is so far removed from being an absolute fact, I'm surprised you would say this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And whether or not they can is irrelevant, since it tells us nothing of how sight works. Plenty of people who have suffered damage to the brain's "facial recognition center" are incapable of recognizing faces.

That is true, but I'm not talking about people who have suffered damage to their brain and therefore can't recognize faces. I am referring to dogs who are not brain damaged, and who should be able to see and recognize faces just as they can immediately recognize their owner's voices without having to resort to an experiment, or recognize their owner through smell without having to resort to an experiment. The only reason they do experiments on the eyes is because they are looking for confirmation.

Quote:

Another way is to see if he was right about words because this would mean that this beauty or ugliness is not striking the optic nerve and being interpreted by the brain, as occurs in hearing, smell, taste and touch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This is gobbledegook.

No it isn't. When we like a certain type of music, we cannot be conditioned to not like it. Our taste can change over time, but this is not the same thing as being conditioned to like something due to what other people like. No matter how much my family likes opera, I don't like it and no one can condition me to like it. That does not apply to the eyes, which can be conditioned to like something due to words that are not symbolic of reality.

Quote:

No, I just didn't think it through carefully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You didn't just slip up. You repeatedly lied about making such a claim.

I did not think it through, that's all. Don't make it more out of this than it is.

Quote:

If a bionic eye is just replacement parts, it wouldn't tell us anything about how the brain and eye interact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Except, as has been pointed out, they're not just "replacement parts." Some of them work by bypassing the non-functional retina entirely. Thus demonstrating that vision works by signals being relayed to the visual cortex via the optic nerve.

Signals are being relayed. That's why we have an optic nerve, but it doesn't explain what the brain is doing. There is no receiver that has been implanted in the visual cortex that shows an image being decoded. I'd like to see them bypass all external stimuli and just transmit the signals where the person can see it as an image.

Quote:

What do you mean by that? He only made two claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, he made quite a lot of claims regarding numerous subjects. Both explicit claims and implicit claims. The eye and optic nerve are not structured the way Lessans thought they were, for example -- as he would have discovered with some elementary research. Literally millions of experiments demonstrate that we do not and cannot see in "real time." And so on, and so on.

He made a claim regarding the eyes. He backed it up by what he observed to be true. If he was wrong, so be it.

Quote:

The worst thing a scientist can do is just ignore a claim if there is any possibility of it being correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

NO!

The worst thing a scientist can do (not that Lessans was even remotely a scientist) is refuse to admit that a hypothesis has been disproved when the experimental evidence clearly demonstrates that this is the case.

First of all this was not a hypothesis. He didn't start out with a guess which required data to prove it. Lessans' observations as to how words are projected onto substance (which cause this conditioning), cannot be ignored just because you don't like what he has to say. To be the brunt of anger that people have toward me just because I believe he was right, is an awful experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yeah, most introductory-level texts claim that there are three neurons involved in a typical "conscious' movement. The first-order neuron is in the cerebral cortex (the motor cortex, to be specific). It synapses with a second-order neuron that extends down through the spinal cord. That neuron synapses with a third-order neuron that exits the spinal cord and synapses with a muscle and causes it to contract.

In reality, many of these impulses actually originate in the basal nuclei deep within the cerebrum and other brain centers, and the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain that we think of as "conscious") only receives the impulses after the action has taken place. In short, an awful lot of what we think of as "conscious decision-making" is actually the brain inventing after-the-fact rationalizations for what we've already done.

That may be true, but there are also studies that show before we consciously act on a decision, the brain has already decided for us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

What do you mean by that? Rationalizations are excuses that are made in an effort to justify a particular behavior. Whether they come before the action, or after the action, proves nothing. We act first, and then rationalize, or the other way around. This doesn't negate his claim that man doesn't have free will. A lot of times we don't think about what we do; we just do it because we want to, for whatever reason. Our brain gives us this option, and we agree to it. We would not agree to do something no matter what the options were, if our conscience did not agree. Here is another definition:

In psychology and logic, rationalization (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which perceived controversial behaviors or feelings are logically justified and explained in a rational or logical manner in order to avoid any true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] Rationalization encourages irrational or unacceptable behavior, motives, or feelings and often involves ad hoc hypothesizing. This process ranges from fully conscious (e.g. to present an external defense against ridicule from others) to mostly subconscious (e.g. to create a block against internal feelings of guilt).
People rationalize for various reasons. Rationalization may differentiate the original deterministic explanation of the behavior or feeling in question.[3][4] Sometimes rationalization occurs when we think we know ourselves better than we do. It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[5]

Rationalization (making excuses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Quote:

What does N.B. stand for?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Nota bene. Anyone who has done any sort of research at all should be familiar with it.

I didn't know, and I took the chance to ask. This kind of response is the exact kind of answer that prevent people from asking questions. Just because I don't know that word (similar to LadyShea not knowing what a syllogism was), does not mean that Lessans did not make correct and impressive observations regarding human nature.

The Lone Ranger · #**34882** 01-21-2014, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not think it through, that's all. Don't make it more than it is.

I'm not making more of it than there is. You made a specific claim. When that claim was demolished, you didn't say, "Oh, I was mistaken." Instead, you repeatedly lied and denied that you had ever made such a claim.

When LadyShea provided your actual quotes -- quotes that you had repeatedly denied ever making -- instead of admitting that you had lied when you denied ever having made those claims, you desperately tried to change the subject.

Want me to provide the quotes yet again?

peacegirl · #**34883** 01-21-2014, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not think it through, that's all. Don't make it more than it is.

I'm not making more of it than there is. You made a specific claim. When that claim was demolished, you didn't say, "Oh, I was mistaken." Instead, you repeatedly lied and denied that you had ever made such a claim.

When LadyShea provided your actual quotes -- quotes that you had repeatedly denied ever making -- instead of admitting that you had lied when you denied ever having made those claims, you desperately tried to change the subject.

Want me to provide the quotes yet again?

I already told you that I did not think this through. What more do you want Lone Ranger? This does not disprove my father's claim, which is why I probably weaseled in the first place. I didn't want people to think that my error proved him wrong, which it doesn't.

Spacemonkey · #**34884** 01-21-2014, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that I did not think this through. What more do you want Lone Ranger?

You could try apologizing for lying to him.

thedoc · #**34885** 01-21-2014, 11:32 PM

What really puzzles me now is why, after all this time with Peacegril nonsense, anyone would engage her as if she were a rational human being. That she is not, is painfully obvious to anyone with any kind of education and intelligence at all. Peacegirl is stuck in her fathers joke book and cannot get out. I would certainly welcome some new material, but the old jokes are wearing a bit thin.

Stephen Maturin · #**34886** 01-22-2014, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

What do you mean by that?

He meant that you have poor reading comprehension.

LadyShea · #**34887** 01-22-2014, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There is plenty of evidence that they can as has been explained to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so far removed from being an absolute fact, I'm surprised you would say this.

He didn't say it was absolute fact. This is why people say you have poor reading comprehension

LadyShea · #**34888** 01-22-2014, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to see them bypass all external stimuli and just transmit the signals where the person can see it as an image.

What external stimuli are you talking about being bypassed?

Visual hallucinations, aka images, can be induced by deep brain electrical stimulation...no other stimuli needed. Is that what you mean?

thedoc · #**34889** 01-22-2014, 01:13 AM

I believe there have been experiments where a computer has generated the proper signal that has been directly transmitted to the brain of a subject and interpreted as an image. Are you now going to deny that satisfying your specific example for proof is not sufficient?

LadyShea · #**34890** 01-22-2014, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLR

So, to sum up: When you said that if someone invented a functioning bionic eye, that would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision, you were lying. Good to have that cleared up.

I never said that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is interesting. If a blind person could see from a bionic eye, it would be proof of afferent vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We'll just have to wait and see if any of them work, but the one that would prove afferent vision correct is the Microsystem System Visual Prosthesis (MIVIP) because it sends impulses directly from the optic nerve to the visual cortex.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If bionic eyes are eventually perfected by allowing signals to be interpreted in the visual cortex and sight being restored, then Lessans would have been wrong.

Just to clear up any confusion

thedoc · #**34891** 01-22-2014, 04:10 AM

Now would be the time for one of those 'Moving Goalposts' graphics.

thedoc · #**34892** 01-22-2014, 04:14 AM

Or this,

Tearing Down the Goalpost - YouTube

Vivisectus · #**34893** 01-22-2014, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not think it through, that's all. Don't make it more than it is.

I'm not making more of it than there is. You made a specific claim. When that claim was demolished, you didn't say, "Oh, I was mistaken." Instead, you repeatedly lied and denied that you had ever made such a claim.

When LadyShea provided your actual quotes -- quotes that you had repeatedly denied ever making -- instead of admitting that you had lied when you denied ever having made those claims, you desperately tried to change the subject.

Want me to provide the quotes yet again?

I already told you that I did not think this through. What more do you want Lone Ranger? This does not disprove my father's claim, which is why I probably weaseled in the first place. I didn't want people to think that my error proved him wrong, which it doesn't.

The problem is that you are given considerable leeway: you are asked to specify a specific sort of test, and a specific result, that would satisfy you that your father was dead wrong.

When those results are then promptly produced, you rapidly backtrack and claim that after all, it doesn't prove anything.

Now if you had taken it back before you were given the evidence, or came up with a good reason why it now suddenly does not constitute evidence, this enormous gaffe would be mitigated somewhat. But neither has happened.

Showing clearly that there IS no test that can convince you: evidence does not interest you at all, unless it confirms what you want to believe.

This is very dishonest in itself, and downright hypocritical in someone who continually accuses people of being biased.

Vivisectus · #**34894** 01-22-2014, 10:06 AM

Just to (completely redundantly) prove my point:

Quote:

I am referring to dogs who are not brain damaged, and who should be able to see and recognize faces just as they can immediately recognize their owner's voices without having to resort to an experiment, or recognize their owner through smell without having to resort to an experiment.

So, the new Holy Grail of Evidence has been set at dogs who somehow convince Peacegirl that they can recognize faces - without any sort of experiment.

That, of course, really means "When I decide that Dogs can recognize faces", which she can conveniently simply refuse to do no matter what happens. To avoid a repeat of the embarrassing existence of the bionic eye, this time she has set a standard for evidence that can never be attained if she does not want it to be attained.

In effect, she is saying "I will change my mind when my mind has been changed."

Rather amazingly, the sole advocate of a work that claims to be scientific rejects science as a method for ascertaining if it is correct.

Incidentally,

Quote:

The only reason they do experiments on the eyes is because they are looking for confirmation.

A more spectacular display of hypocrisy is hard to even imagine - in the very same post you have made sure that the only possible outcome of a test is confirmation of what you already believe.

peacegirl · #**34895** 01-22-2014, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

What do you mean by that?

He meant that you have poor reading comprehension.

Let's start over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yeah, most introductory-level texts claim that there are three neurons involved in a typical "conscious' movement. The first-order neuron is in the cerebral cortex (the motor cortex, to be specific). It synapses with a second-order neuron that extends down through the spinal cord. That neuron synapses with a third-order neuron that exits the spinal cord and synapses with a muscle and causes it to contract.

In reality, many of these impulses actually originate in the basal nuclei deep within the cerebrum and other brain centers, and the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain that we think of as "conscious") only receives the impulses after the action has taken place. In short, an awful lot of what we think of as "conscious decision-making" is actually the brain inventing after-the-fact rationalizations for what we've already done.

Quote:

That may be true, but there are also studies that show before we consciously act on a decision, the brain has already decided for us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This is what Lone Ranger wrote: :foocl:

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it?

Okay, let me go further here. There is no way that our decisions (our choices) are made without our conscious input. That would be like saying the cerebrum is making the decision and the cerebral cortex only knows about it after the fact. That seems a little bit backward to me because we do not perform actions without our consent; without the agent which is us knowing about it. It doesn't work that way.

peacegirl · #**34896** 01-22-2014, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

There is plenty of evidence that they can as has been explained to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is so far removed from being an absolute fact, I'm surprised you would say this.

He didn't say it was absolute fact. This is why people say you have poor reading comprehension

That is what he is implying LadyShea because he believes the scientific studies prove (or come the closest to proving) that this is the case. He wouldn't say this out loud because he knows that science is about theory, not facts, but for all intents and purposes this is what he meant.

peacegirl · #**34897** 01-22-2014, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to see them bypass all external stimuli and just transmit the signals where the person can see it as an image.

What external stimuli are you talking about being bypassed?

Visual hallucinations, aka images, can be induced by deep brain electrical stimulation...no other stimuli needed. Is that what you mean?

There is no proof that a receiver implanted in the brain decodes signals coming from light that can be interpreted as a real image. You can say the reason for this is because science hasn't the technology to be able to gather enough photons, but that is a guess LadyShea; that's all it is. The fact that we don't have the technology to replicate a real life image does not get scientists off the hook. There is no way therefore that we could know what is really happening in the brain to produce normal sight. What does deep brain stimulation have to do with the process by which normal sight is achieved? Sure we could get all kinds of hallucinations. So does LSD produce hallucinations, but where do these images relate to our discussion of providing proof that real life images are produced in the brain through a decoding process?

Spacemonkey · #**34898** 01-22-2014, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is what he is implying LadyShea because he believes the scientific studies prove (or come the closest to proving) that this is the case. He wouldn't say this out loud because he knows that science is about theory, not facts, but for all intents and purposes this is what he meant.

Just because you never mean what you say or say what you mean, that doesn't mean you can safely assume the same of others.

Spacemonkey · #**34899** 01-22-2014, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no proof that a receiver implanted in the brain decodes signals coming from light that can be interpreted as a real image. You can say the reason for this is because science hasn't the technology to be able to gather enough photons, but that is a guess LadyShea; that's all it is. The fact that we don't have the technology to replicate a real life image does not get scientists off the hook. There is no way therefore that we could know what is really happening in the brain to produce normal sight. What does deep brain stimulation have to do with the process by which normal sight is achieved? Sure we could get all kinds of hallucinations. So does LSD produce hallucinations, but where do these images relate to our discussion of providing proof that real life images are produced in the brain through a decoding process?

So proof for you would be an artificially induced image induced in the brain without an object, that is nonetheless also a real life image rather than anything that could be dismissed as mere hallucination?

thedoc · #**34900** 01-22-2014, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These experiments will be interesting for sure, but they will never replicate what my father has discovered since the principle of "greater satisfaction" cannot be identified through the mapping of neural processes.

There are many areas of the brain that have been identified with different positive emotional responses. There is no reason to say that when a person makes a choice that leads to 'Greater satisfaction' for that person, as opposed making a choice that is less satisfying, that those areas of the brain cannot be identified by mapping the neural responses. And by identifying a greater or lesser result by the nature of those responses.