Blindsight and the Million Dollar Challenge

Sorry, I need to present this from the article.

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

Is empathy conscious or subconscious?

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

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

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.

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

This has been raised previously, by CC.

So what? Relate it to the question of blindsight.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No idea. Search the internet.

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?

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

No idea. Scientific studies are ongoing.

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.

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

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

How about this:

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

Zombie

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.

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Optical blindness is not blindsight.

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

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?"

 

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

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

 

Nope.

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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/

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.