Blindsight and the Million Dollar Challenge

[Seattle]

I think this pretty much clears it up..

 

[billvon]

Yes, I did read and think about it. I concluded that the expression "blindsight" is a contradiction in terms.

That's . . . what everyone here is talking about. The apparent contradiction, but one that actually occurs. That's the entire topic.

Did you really, honestly miss that?

 

[James R]

That explains a lot.

Thanks. I'm good at explaining a lot.

You know that wiki is not a scientific reference, right? I posted a scientific reference.

Wikipedia is certainly not perfect or infallible, but it's often remarkably useful if you want a quick overview of a subject you don't know much (or anything) about. Perhaps you should give it a chance.

You know that it is editable, right? If you find errors in the wikipedia article, you can correct them.

 

[C C]

[...] I agree that the matter of p-zombie is not relevant, though, other than being an example of reacting to non-conscious stimuli. The p-zombie does such for what would otherwise be conscious stimuli, whereas blindsight is only ever non-conscious, in both a p-zombie and a normal zombie.

Along with Nicholas Humphrey's forays into consciousness and the impairment, the 2006 novel "Blindsight" seemed to dance around the idea of or serve as a speculative bridge to the medical condition possibly grazing p-zombie issues. Forgot to directly mention it. At any rate, we've concordance that it wouldn't have legs.
_

 

[Sarkus]

Along with Nicholas Humphrey's forays into consciousness and the impairment, the 2006 novel "Blindsight" seemed to dance around the idea of or serve as a speculative bridge to the medical condition possibly grazing p-zombie issues. Forgot to directly mention it. At any rate, we've concordance that it wouldn't have legs.
_

Thanks for that. Not a book I've heard of but sounds intriguing. Have you read? Recommended?

 

[C C]

Thanks for that. Not a book I've heard of but sounds intriguing. Have you read? Recommended?

If I read fiction as much as in school days, it's certainly one I would have known about and read by now. As it is, I chanced upon a video about it a couple of years ago, and that along with various reviews and summaries prematurely killed the suspense for me.

Any example of science or philosophical fiction that explores consciousness tends to stick in my mind, though, because there seemed to be such a dearth of the subject back when my brother carelessly left his speculative literature choices scattered around the house (for vulnerable younger minds to be exposed to ).
_

 

[Write4U]

The apparent contradiction, but one that actually occurs.

And how was that proved?

Are you talking about this'

An example of blindsight would be if an object was moved to the left and a person who was looking at the object, but cortically blind, somehow knew it was moved to the left, even though they could not see it.

And has that been a recorded test? If a bird is navigating by the earth's magnetic fields, is that blind sightedness?

How Migrating Birds Use Quantum Effects to Navigate
New research hints at the biophysical underpinnings of their ability to use Earth’s magnetic field lines to find their way to their breeding and wintering grounds

Migrating birds use celestial cues to navigate, much as sailors of yore used the sun and stars to guide them. But unlike humans, birds also detect the magnetic field generated by Earth’s molten core and use it to determine their position and direction. Despite more than 50 years of research into magnetoreception in birds, scientists have been unable to work out exactly how they use this information to stay on course. Recently we and others have made inroads into this enduring mystery.

Our experimental evidence suggests something extraordinary: a bird’s compass relies on subtle, fundamentally quantum effects in short-lived molecular fragments, known as radical pairs, formed photochemically in its eyes. That is, the creatures appear to be able to “see” Earth’s magnetic field lines and use that information to chart a course between their breeding and wintering grounds.

more... https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-migrating-birds-use-quantum-effects-to-navigate/

But apparently, this requires functional eyesight. What happens to the bird when the photochemistry in the eyes does not work?

 

[James R]

Write4U:

If a bird is navigating by the earth's magnetic fields, is that blind sightedness?

It's not blindsight. You know - not the thing this thread is about.

If a bird is seeing magnetic fields lines, as the article you quoted suggests, then it is using its normal sight.

But apparently, this requires functional eyesight.

People who exhibit blindsight do not have functional eyesight. That's the point.

What happens to the bird when the photochemistry in the eyes does not work?

The bird is blind.

Presumably, if the bird would normally use sight to follow magnetic field lines, then it would also lose its sense of direction. An obvious test of the theory in the article you quoted suggests itself.

Are you up to speed on what blindsight it yet, Write4U? Do you understand that it requires eyes that function?

 

[Write4U]

If a bird is seeing magnetic fields lines, as the article you quoted suggests, then it is using its normal sight.

I disagree.
Visualizing magnetic waves is not "normal" optical sight. It's the same difference as looking through binoculars and looking at a compass.
It seems to meets the definition of blind sight.

 

[James R]

I disagree.
Visualizing magnetic waves is not "normal" optical sight.

It is for birds, according to what you posted.

It's the same difference as looking through binoculars and looking at a compass.
It seems to meets the definition of blind sight.

Looking through binoculars, looking at a compass, and looking at short-lived molecular fragments are all forms of looking (i.e. sight). All of them use the eyes and the normal optical apparatus of the brain.

None of them qualify as blindsight.

Do you understand what blindsight is, yet?

 

[Pinball1970]

I disagree.
Visualizing magnetic waves is not "normal" optical sight. It's the same difference as looking through binoculars and looking at a compass.
It seems to meets the definition of blind sight.

Of course it's normal for birds and other migratory species.
Can you please take in information from other posters?
Blind sight is DIFFERENT from normal sensory responses.
The receptors for visual stimulation are not in place but the responses can still happen according to the study.
The title is apt, the subject has no sight, is blind YET exhibits a reaction to visual stimulus.
The apparatus is removed yet stimuli is still "sensed."
What is doing the sensing is the question.

 

[Sarkus]

I disagree.
Visualizing magnetic waves is not "normal" optical sight. It's the same difference as looking through binoculars and looking at a compass.
It seems to meets the definition of blind sight.

Blindsight is the apparent ability to respond to visual stimuli without having what has previously been considered to be the necessary capability to do so - i.e. due to a damaged optical system.

Before you want to say "this qualifies as blindsight" ask yourself 3 questions:
1. is the stimuli in question visual?
2. is the subject visually impaired compared to the norm such that they would seem to lack the capability they normally have to respond to the visual stimuli?
3. are they reacting to it (while not being aware that they can see it)?

If you can answer "yes" to all three - you have a case of blindsight. If not, you don't. And all your examples thus far seem to have fallen down on one or other of the questions.

So, let's look at the bird example.
1. Are the stimuli it is receiving visual?
Well, according to your own post: "a bird’s compass relies on subtle, fundamentally quantum effects... formed photochemically in its eyes. That is, the creatures appear to be able to “see” Earth’s magnetic field lines...". So either we can say that these do not meed the definition of visual stimuli - in which case this has nothing to do with blindsight (i.e. you answer "no" to question 1) - or we can say that, for birds, this qualifies as visual stimuli.
So let's move to question 2 assuming that we do consider this visual stimuli.

2. Is the subject visually impaired?
Well, a normal bird would not be. So a normal bird able to see these magnetic fields is not demonstrating blindsight.
However, if you get a bird that has lost what is considered to be the functional capability to see them, then the bird is a candidate for demonstrating blindsight.
So let's move to question 3 assuming that we have a bird that has actually lost the ability, due to a damaged optical system.

3. Is the bird reacting to the visual stimuli?
and by that I mean not the magnetic fields via another non-visual means, but via the photochemical formations in the eye? If yes, you have blindsight. If not, you do not.


Now let's look at some of the other things you have suggested might be blindsight:
- Echo-location: falls at question 1 (it is not visual stimuli)
- Looking at a compass: falls at question 2 (no damage to the optical system)
- Looking through binoculars: falls at question 2 (no damage to the optical system)

Any others you want to suggest, that you think pass all 3 questions?
Or do you disagree with what I have posted here - e.g. needing to pass those 3 questions?

 

[gmilam]

If I am reading this correctly, blindsight happens in patients who have cortical blindness. In other words, the eyes function fine mechanically. The problem is farther downstream in the processing of the signal.

Could this be similar to what happens in split brain patients?

 

[Write4U]

It is for birds, according to what you posted.

Birds are not humans. It is not normal for humans to navigate by the earth's magnetic field unless it is via a compass.

Looking through binoculars, looking at a compass, and looking at short-lived molecular fragments are all forms of looking (i.e. sight). All of them use the eyes and the normal optical apparatus of the brain.

No, that is not logical. It is the compass that is reading the magnetic field. All we do is look at the compass, not the magnetic field.

None of them qualify as blindsight.

Why not.?

Do you understand what blindsight is, yet?

I understand what you are telling me, but you don't know what blindsight is, do you?

I am asking probing questions and so far I have not heard a single correction other than, "We don't know, but it isn't that".
And what am I supposed to learn from all this?

 

[gmilam]

Birds are not humans. It is not normal for humans to navigate by the earth's magnetic field unless it is via a compass.
No, that is not logical. It is the compass that is reading the magnetic field. All we do is look at the compass, not the magnetic field.
Why not.?
I understand what you are telling me, but you don't know what blindsight is, do you?

I am asking probing questions and so far I have not heard a single correction other than, "We don't know, but it isn't that".
And what am I supposed to learn from all this?

You might start by reading the f***ing article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

 

[Write4U]

Of course it's normal for birds and other migratory species.

It's not normal for humans, and that is the subject, no?

Can you please take in information from other posters?

What information? No one knows because there is a lack of information. What can I learn from you? Do you know?
I am just making some probing suggestions. Can you do better?

Blind sight is DIFFERENT from normal sensory responses.

I believe I have demonstrated one possible difference.
The receptors for visual stimulation are not in place but the responses can still happen according to the study.

The title is apt, the subject has no sight, is blind YET exhibits a reaction to visual stimulus.

Pure sophistry!

The apparatus is removed yet stimuli is still "sensed."

What apparatus?

What is doing the sensing is the question.

Penrose and Hameroff believe the translation is performed by microtubule orientation, similar to a compass needle. And that is what birds use, not optically (although they do have normal sight as well., but that is irrelevant), but magnetically.

Can you optically see magnetic waves, without
From what I see, the rest is just woo. We are subject to the entire range of wavelengths, but optically we can only see a very narrow band.

I can make a defensible case that navigation via sonar is blind sight. You may say it isn't that, but it is not wrong

Whale songs can travel for thousands of kilometres through this horizontal band of water, which is often termed an 'acoustic guide'.

Under the waves, light vanishes. By just 200m below the surface, photosynthesis becomes impossible. At 1,000m down, sunlight disappears entirely, as explained by the National Ocean Service. The deep ocean – the largest habitat on earth – is also the darkest.

As light becomes increasingly irrelevant underwater, sound becomes more important than ever. It’s unsurprising that cetaceans - dolphins and whales - rely on sound more than any other sense to understand, navigate and manipulate their world.

While apes are renowned for their colour vision, and humans like to think of themselves as visual creatures, cetaceans have no use for expensive ocular equipment. Instead, they have evolved some of the most distinct, complex and unique acoustic anatomy and behaviour on earth. Cetaceans see and feel with sound.

https://www.bbcearth.com/news/the-loudest-voice-in-the-animal-kingdom

 

[Write4U]

You might start by reading the f***ing article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

Very scientifically presented. And did you find any answers other than "we don't know", in that article?

In the absence of proof, this is what the article concludes:

The assumed existence of blindsight is controversial, with some arguing that it is merely degraded conscious vision.[4][5][6]

Can you do better? Please quote if you can.

Of course we can always resort to this article in Wiki:

What is a supernatural vision?

A vision is something seen in a dream, trance, or religious ecstasy, especially a supernatural appearance that usually conveys a revelation. Visions generally have more clarity than dreams, but traditionally fewer psychological connotations. Visions are known to emerge from spiritual traditions and could provide a lens into human nature and reality.[2]Prophecy is often associated with visions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_(spirituality)#

But that does not seem very scientific.

 

[Write4U]

Before you want to say "this qualifies as blindsight" ask yourself 3 questions:
1. is the stimuli in question visual?
2. is the subject visually impaired compared to the norm such that they would seem to lack the capability they normally have to respond to the visual stimuli?
3. are they reacting to it (while not being aware that they can see it)?

If you can answer "yes" to all three - you have a case of blindsight. If not, you don't. And all your examples thus far seem to have fallen down on one or other of the questions.

I believe that the 2 examples I cited do meet all 3 qualifications. Navigation by "other than optical observation".

Can anyone here present a recorded example of all 3 yesses or are we just setting a standard that must be met? And what is the "norm" of sight?
How about blind cave-fish?

Mexican tetra

The Mexican tetra (Astyanax mexicanus), also known as the blind cave fish, blind cave characin, and blind cave tetra, is a freshwaterfish of the familyCharacidae of the orderCharaciformes.[3][4] The type species of its genus, it is native to the Nearctic realm, originating in the lower Rio Grande and the Neueces and Pecos Rivers in Texas, as well as the central and eastern parts of Mexico.[3][5][6]

Depending on the exact population, cave forms can have degenerated sight or have total loss of sight and even their eyes, due to down-regulation of the protein αA-crystallin and consequent lens cell death.[14]

The fish in the Pachón caves have lost their eyes completely whilst the fish from the Micos cave only have limited sight.[15] Cave fish and surface fish are able to produce fertile offspring.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_tetra

Does anybody here have any answers? If not, what is this "argument from authority" all about?

 

[Sarkus]

I believe that the 2 examples I cited do meet all 3 qualifications. Navigation by "other than optical observation".

Blindsight is not "navigation by other than optical observation"! If that was the case then all blind people would have blindsight - even if they just crawled around on the floor and felt for a path.
Blindsight is all about visual stimuli. You have been told this. Repeatedly. Blindsight is the ability to react to visual stimuli in the apparent absence of the ability to see, such that one reacts subconsciously to the visual stimuli. The mechanism for this occuring is not understood, although it is being studied, and theories exist.

Can anyone here present a recorded example of all 3 yesses or are we just setting a standard that must be met?

YES! There are recorded examples of the phenomenon. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150925-blindsight-the-strangest-form-of-consciousness is a bbc article on it. Read it. Try to understand it.

And what is the "norm" of sight?

It is the normal functioning sense of sight that a normal member of that species has. It is one not degraded by injury or affliction.

How about blind cave-fish?

Does it pass the three questions I suggested? No. It fails the first, in that its method of navigation, if fully blind, is through non-visual stimuli and their ability to sense these stimuli through what are known as lateral lines. It explains this in the wiki article you linked.

Does anybody here have any answers?

To what blindsight is? Yes - it has been explained to you. Repeatedly. You're just refusing to listen and/or comprehend. Answers for the mechanism behind it? No. It is being studied, though.

Visual stimuli, Write4U. If you continue to consider examples that have nothing to do with visual stimuli then you are clearly just trolling.

 

[Write4U]

Visual stimuli, Write4U. If you continue to consider examples that have nothing to do with visual stimuli then you are clearly just trolling.

Of course, he is asking difficult questions, so he must be a troll.
OK, let's see. Before I stop trolling, allow me one more observation, from my "sighted blindness"
btw, what is the difference between blind sightedness and sighted blindness.?

From the link.

The result was that almost everything to the left of his nose was invisible to him. It was as if he were looking out of a window, with the curtains drawn across half of his world.

this disqualifies the subject as being non-sighted. He is partially sighted. Game changer.

Clearly, despite his blindness, Daniel’s healthy eyes were still watching the world and passing the information to his unconscious, which was guiding his behaviour.

So, no optical blindness. Just partial sight and ability to predict from perceived incoming data.

Just how many of our decisions occur out of our awareness, even when we have the illusion of control? And if the conscious mind is not needed to direct our actions, then what is its purpose? Why did we evolve this vivid internal life, if we are almost “zombies” acting without awareness?

Oh, I see, a infatuation with zombies.

“These cases open a window into parts of the brain that are normally not visible,” says Marco Tamietto, who is based at Tilburg University. “They offer a view to functions that are difficult to observe – that are normally silent.”

Yes, homeostatic functions.
And we know that homeostasis is an unconscious information processing and controlling all kinds of neural stimuli about the state of health of the organism. There is lots of unconscious "data processing" from all kinds of EM stimuli. That does not make these blind or silent.
These are the unconscious functions that keep us alive.

What is the differenc between say, color blindness and partial blindness? Seems that when colorblind people put on color-blind glasses they enter a whole new colored reality, which was a dull brown (old pictures) before. This was accomplished by removing some interfering colors, so that the brain can "see" a much greater range of colors, shades, and contrast.
They were partially blind-sighted. Is there a range of blind-sightedness.?


My final question. then I'll stop asking the difficult questions or what you call trolling.
How many reports are there of blind-sighted people?
And why is this rare and not common? Does the brain and neural network make adjustments in data processing to compensate for sensory impairments and handicaps or is this something that all human have?

How many test subjects are required to form concensus?

p.s. with "trolling" do you mean actinglike a troll or fishing for food?

Trolling is when someone post or comments online to deliberately upset others. In short: Trolling is when someone deliberately tries to upset others online.Dec 4, 2023
https://www.esafety.gov.au/young-people/trolling#

Do I upset you with my questions? Well, if so, I beg your pardon.

But, for your information, I don't sit here with a grin on my face. Rather a frown from frustration about the "zombie" part of this scientific discussion