Blindsight and the Million Dollar Challenge

I think this pretty much clears it up..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).
_

 

And how was that proved?

Are you talking about this'

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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

 

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

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?

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.

Pure sophistry!

What apparatus?

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

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

 

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:

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?

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

But that does not seem very scientific.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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

Oh, I see, a infatuation with zombies.

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.?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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?

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