Blindsight and the Million Dollar Challenge

[Write4U]

Sorry, I need to present this from the article.

Of particular interest has been the fact that they can sense emotion: when presented with faces, they can tell whether it is happy or sad, angry or surprised, and they even start to unconsciously mimic the expressions. “Even though they did not report anything at a conscious level, we could show a change in attitude, a synchronisation of emotional expressions to the pictures in their blind field,” says Tamietto, who has worked extensively with Weiskrantz.

I believe this falls under subconscious "empathic response" caused by the "mirror neural network".

Is empathy conscious or subconscious?

Empathy is a Hardwired Capacity
Patients unconsciously mimic the actions and facial expressions of others through brain mechanisms that mirror the actions of others by stimulating the same motor and sensory areas in the observers' brains as the person they are observing. May 9, 2017
Could this apply to partially sighted (blind-sighted) persons, like Daniel (see above).

That's 4 , if we add heliotropism then we have 5 instances that would appear to meet the requirements of blind-sightedness.
How about: Circadian rhythm

Description
A circadian rhythm, or circadian cycle, is a natural oscillation that repeats roughly every 24 hours. Circadian rhythms can refer to any process that originates within an organism and responds to the environment. Wikipedia

.

 

[Pinball1970]

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 is nothing to do with that.
For the third time and with a sense of dread and pessimism I will try and explain again.

We are talking about individuals who are blind YET respond to visual stimuli.
The apparatus I mentioned was in reference to the biology required for sight. Stuff relating to the eyes.


As an analogy we could take an individual and remove all biological apparatus pertaining to hearing but the subject still responds to sound. That would be "Deaf hearing."

Are you with us?

 

[Sarkus]

Of course, he is asking difficult questions, so he must be a troll.

You're not asking difficult questions. You're constantly asking questions about what you should know by now to be irrelevant - i.e. things that are not examples of blindsight.

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

Being partially sighted is a theory behind the phenomenon, where the person has sufficient optical receptors and processing ability but lacks the conscious awareness of them in action.

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

Again, this is what is being studied - how these people perceive, subconsciously, what they can not consciously see. Always visual stimuli, though.

Oh, I see, a infatuation with zombies.

This has been raised previously, by CC.

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.

So what? Relate it to the question of blindsight.

What is the differenc between say, color blindness and partial blindness?

Is this a serious question? I'll assume, however trivial, that it is.
Colour blindness is an impairment to the ability to interpret colour, but they have full conscious awareness of all other aspects of what they are viewing (shapes, distance etc).
Partial blindness is an impairment to the ability to view what they are perceiving (shapes, distance etc), while their colour-perception may be unaffected.

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.

For some colour-blind people, yes, the image they normally see is a dull brown. Others see nothing but greyscale - i.e. a total loss of colour and for which no glasses will compensate. Others, such as myself, only have a slight deficiency such that we can't interpret between certain colours/shades - for me, dark green and dark red look pretty much the same.

Is there a range of blind-sightedness.?

I imagine so. Of those exhibiting blindsight, some may be able to subconciously see far more than others might subconsciously see. For some it may just be movement, for others it may be everything.

My final question. then I'll stop asking the difficult questions or what you call trolling.

Difficult questions are not trolling, Write4U. What you are doing, given what you should have understood by now, is pretty darn close. Your questions are not difficult. They are just mostly irrelevant.

How many reports are there of blind-sighted people?

No idea. Search the internet.

And why is this rare and not common?

Possibly because it is only highlighted in people who are otherwise recognised as blind (a small % of the population), and of those I can imagine that not many will exhibit it. I also imagine that it is not recognised within normally sighted people because, well, they can see normally. As such, why would you think it would be 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?

No idea. This is what scientific study of the phenomenon might answer.

How many test subjects are required to form concensus?

No idea. Scientific studies are ongoing.

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

I mean acting like a troll: asking "is this blindsight?" when you should know, given what people have told you, that it is not. And then asking again with a new example. Or asserting that something else is an example of blindsight that clearly isn't.

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

You "upset" because of your troll-like behaviour.

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

Why does the "zombie" part of the discussion frustrate you?

 

[gmilam]

Something that seems to be getting lost in all the noise...

Cortical blindness is the total or partial loss of vision in a normal-appearing eye caused by damage to the brain's occipital cortex.

A patient with cortical blindness has no vision but the response of his/her pupil to light is intact (as the reflex does not involve the cortex). Therefore, one diagnostic test for cortical blindness is to first objectively verify the optic nerves and the non-cortical functions of the eyes are functioning normally. This involves confirming that patient can distinguish light/dark, and that his/her pupils dilate and contract with light exposure. Then, the patient is asked to describe something he/she would be able to recognize with normal vision. For example, the patient would be asked the following:

• "How many fingers am I holding up?"
• "What does that sign (on a custodian's closet, a restroom door, an exit sign) say?"
• "What kind of vending machine (with a vivid picture of a well-known brand name on it) is that?"

Patients with cortical blindness will not be able to identify the item being questioned about at all or will not be able to provide any details other than color or perhaps general shape. This indicates that the lack of vision is neurological rather than ocular. It specifically indicates that the occipital cortex is unable to correctly process and interpret the intact input coming from the retinas.

 

[Write4U]

Why does the "zombie" part of the discussion frustrate you?

How about this:

Zombie physics
05 May 2016

Taken from the May 2016 issue of Physics World
What makes for a fun student project that provides useful results, a journal publication and a high-profile conference talk? Stephen Ornes describes how Alex Alemi and Matt Bierbaum spiced up their learning by mixing statistical physics with their love of zombie tales

What confuses me, is the free use of "zombie" as a scientific term.

Zombie

A zombie is a mythological undead corporeal revenant created through the reanimation of a corpse. In modern popular culture, zombies are most commonly found in horror and fantasy genre works. Created by: George Romero

Modern media depictions of the reanimation of the dead often do not involve magic but rather science fictional methods such as carriers, fungi, radiation, mental diseases, vectors, pathogens, parasites, scientific accidents, etc.[1][2]

The English word "zombie" was first recorded in 1819 in a history of Brazil by the poet Robert Southey, in the form of "zombi".[3]

Dictionaries trace the word's origin to African languages, relating to words connected to gods, ghosts and souls.

Preliminary evidence has suggested that T. gondii infection may induce some of the same alterations in the human brain as those observed in rodents.[18][19][9][20][21][22] Many of these associations have been strongly debated and newer studies have found them to be weak, concluding:[23]

On the whole, there was little evidence that T. gondii was related to increased risk of psychiatric disorder, poor impulse control, personality aberrations, or neurocognitive impairment.

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

I bet that all the descriptions of "zombie" behavior can be achieved via "targeted" anesthetics once we have mapped the brain's neural systems.

Ironically, we'll probably need to use zombie AI for that massive task.

 

[Sarkus]

What confuses me, is the free use of "zombie" as a scientific term.

It's not a scientific term. You seem to have misunderstood what was being discussed. Try philosophical zombie - or p-zombie
This is what CC referred to. So no need to get frustrated... just expand your reading.

 

[billvon]

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.?

Blindsight is a term for someone who is blind due to problem with their brain (i.e. they cannot process the input from their eyes) but can still respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.

Sighted blindness is a term you made up to try to confuse things and distract from your inability to understand the topic.

So, no optical blindness.

Optical blindness is not blindsight.

Yes, homeostatic functions.

Has nothing to do with this. Again an attempt to confuse things and distract from your inability to understand the topic.

What is the differenc between say, color blindness

Color blindness is a defect in one of the retinal pigments in the cone cells in the eye, such that the person with colorblindness cannot see the normal range of colors that a trichromat or tetrachromat can see.

Partial blindness is a loss of part of the visual field, which can be caused by a great many things (like cataracts or a detached retina.)

Again, has nothing to do with the topic.

Will your next question be "in that case, what's the difference between a manual and automatic transmission?"

 

[Write4U]

Blindsight is a term for someone who is blind due to problem with their brain (i.e. they cannot process the input from their eyes) but can still respond to visual stimuli that they do not consciously see.

So, what you are saying is that "action potentials" are being produced without the normal exteroception by the conscious part of the brain?
Maybe the parts of the sensory observation are also being "tested" by the interoceptive neural system .

Something must process the incoming data. Does the self-referential homeostatic neural network itself acquire an emergent autonomous function that can solve "problems" in substituting survival skills such as "vision". That's how it was before the brain became conscious, no?

Amygdala Response to Emotional Stimuli without Awareness: Facts and Interpretations

Over the past two decades, evidence has accumulated that the human amygdala exerts some of its functions also when the observer is not aware of the content, or even presence, of the triggering emotional stimulus. Nevertheless, there is as of yet no consensus on the limits and conditions that affect the extent of amygdala’s response without focused attention or awareness.

Here we review past and recent studies on this subject, examining neuroimaging literature on healthy participants as well as brain-damaged patients, and we comment on their strengths and limits. We propose a theoretical distinction between processes involved in attentional unawareness, wherein the stimulus is potentially accessible to enter visual awareness but fails to do so because attention is diverted, and in sensory unawareness, wherein the stimulus fails to enter awareness because its normal processing in the visual cortex is suppressed.

more...... https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02029/full

 

[billvon]

So, what you are saying is that "action potentials" are being produced without the normal exteroception by the conscious part of the brain?

Nope.

Something must process the incoming data. Does the self-referential homeostatic neural network itself acquire an emergent autonomous function that can solve "problems" in substituting survival skills such as "vision".

No. It is clear that the metaheuristic anomaly functions of the brain are taking over from the hyperresonant microtuble linkage engrams in the medulla oblongata. [/s]

Blindsight is, again, response to stimulus that the person cannot see but is received by their eyes (and some part of their CNS.) Some responses are simple - pupillary dilation in response to light and blinking or flinching in response to an object very close to the eye are examples here. Some are more complex - the ability to catch (more often than a totally blind person) something thrown at them. All of them represent pathways that are not involved in conscious vision.

It's useful as a way to study the connectome of our CNS, but doesn't have many higher philosophical implications.

 

[Write4U]

No. It is clear that the metaheuristic anomaly functions of the brain are taking over from the hyper resonant microtuble linkage engrams in the medulla oblongata. [/s]

I didn't dare mention it.... it was the first thing that came to mind.....

 

[James R]

Write4U:

You posted your reply #54 to me a full 4 hours after Sarkus posted post #52.

If you can't follow the discussion, you shouldn't try to dominate it.

Several people here have pointed you to where you can find out what blindsight it. Some have gone further and have actually given you a simple step-by-step recipe you can use to work it out.

And yet, you're apparently still oblivious. What's wrong with you, man?

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.

What the compass is doing is irrelevant to the sight. This thread is about sight. Get it?

When we look at a compass, we are looking at the compass. We are using sight.

Looking at a compass is not blindsight. It is sight.

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

You're completely clueless.

Surely, at some level, you must realise that you don't know what you're talking about, but you continue to post regardless. And trying to project your own failings onto somebody else is both dishonest and not nice. Stop that nonsense.

I am asking probing questions and so far I have not heard a single correction...

Don't tell lies, Write4U. There's a lot of it going around, it seems, on this forum at the moment - albeit from a small number of posters. You don't really want to be that guy, do you?

And what am I supposed to learn from all this?

What blindsight is, for starters. Or not. You don't have to read or post in this thread, you know.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Just to let you know, the following items, all posted by you, are all irrelevant to the topic of the thread:

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.

This is you trying to find an excuse to post on one of your obsessions again, which is entirely inappropriate in this thread. Every time you find yourself out of your depth in a discussion, you do this sort of thing. Stop it.

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

You cannot make any such case. Work out what blindsight is before you post again. I'll give you a week to think it through.

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

Does that link mention blindsight anywhere? I will be most surprised if it does. I will assume it doesn't, for now.

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

What is a supernatural vision?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_(spirituality)#

Completely off topic. Irrelevant.

How about blind cave-fish?

Do they normally use sight? No? Then irrelevant.

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

Don't tell lies, Write4U. You're still stuck on the basic definition. You haven't started to attempt to understand any of the arguments for or against blindsight.

Before I stop trolling, allow me one more observation...

No. You've trolled enough. Take a week out of this thread. Read it over. Then, maybe, you can post here again.

Consider yourself lucky that you didn't pick up an official warning, due to your trolling in this thread.

Oh, I see, a infatuation with zombies.

*sigh*

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.

You tried to find another excuse there to move the topic onto one of your obsessions. Stop it.

What is the differenc between say, color blindness and partial blindness?

A valid question, if you really didn't know, but again off topic.

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

One guess.

Do I upset you with my questions?

Your trolling posts to this thread are an annoying distraction for all involved. Stop trolling.

I believe this falls under subconscious "empathic response" caused by the "mirror neural network".

Another one of the spin-a-wheel terms you try to inject into every discussion. Off topic.

How about: Circadian rhythm

It is NOT BLINDSIGHT. Get it, yet?

How about this:

What confuses me, is the free use of "zombie" as a scientific term.

Take your confusion to a different thread. It is OFF TOPIC here. Get it, yet?

So, what you are saying is that "action potentials" are being produced without the normal exteroception by the conscious part of the brain?

Another attempt by you to shift the topic onto a pet obsession of yours. Just stop it.

Something must process the incoming data. Does the self-referential homeostatic neural network itself acquire an emergent autonomous function that can solve "problems" in substituting survival skills such as "vision". That's how it was before the brain became conscious, no?

Meaningless word salad. Stop it.

Amygdala Response to Emotional Stimuli without Awareness: Facts and Interpretations
more...... https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02029/full

This could, just conceivably, be relevant to the topic. But even a stopped clock is still right twice a day.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Write4U is forbidden from posting in this thread for 1 week, due to making no effort to understand what the discussion is about and then following that up with trollish attempts at distraction and irrelevant, off-topic posting.

 

[Pinball1970]

Hallelujah.


Do you think Write4U could be a professor of psychology at MIT conducting a live experiment?

He has found this perfect algorithm/AI that posts in social media causing the most amount of frustration to responders?


Intended to induce the most heinous, self-referential, homeostatic, microtubule meltdown possible?


I do not think we should rule it out.

 

[foghorn]

Hallelujah.
Do you think Write4U could be a professor of psychology at MIT conducting a live experiment?
He has found this perfect algorithm/AI that posts in social media causing the most amount of frustration to responders?
Intended to induce the most heinous, self-referential, homeostatic, microtubule meltdown possible?
I do not think we should rule it out.

Or, a professor somewhere has given his algorithm/AI a name... JamesR.

 

[Pinball1970]

Or, a professor somewhere has given his algorithm/AI a name... JamesR.

I take people at face value and I find James R perfectly reasonable.
That goes for everyone else on here even though I have had a couple of disagreements.

 

[foghorn]

I take people at face value and I find James R perfectly reasonable.
That goes for everyone else on here even though I have had a couple of disagreements.

On some now locked threads you may find JR allows a thread to go on and on even when the thread's initiator is questionably rocky in the upper compartment from the get-go. I.e this example went on for 66Pages.
"The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy"
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...-of-god-to-a-2-decimal-point-accuracy.165150/

 

[Pinball1970]

On some now locked threads you may find JR allows a thread to go on and on even when the thread's initiator is questionably rocky in the upper compartment from the get-go. I.e this example went on for 66Pages.
"The first experimental measurement of God; to a 2-decimal point accuracy"
https://www.sciforums.com/threads/t...-of-god-to-a-2-decimal-point-accuracy.165150/


View attachment 5798

Something that James can look at possibly?

 

[Sarkus]

Something that James can look at possibly?

Look at what was posted?? No! That's been done to death, resulting in the thread being locked, and the opening-poster (the one pushing their pseudo-scientific claptrap) being banned. No need to revisit, at least not for the ostensible content per se.

 

[Pinball1970]

Look at what was posted?? No! That's been done to death, resulting in the thread being locked, and the opening-poster (the one pushing their pseudo-scientific claptrap) being banned. No need to revisit, at least not for the ostensible content per se.

Not at the thread, I meant in general. If threads digress too much or go on too long I am sure it can be raised in a reasonable fashion. At some point.