Living without a brain

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I have discussed this before some years back.....about a man who lives without 90% of his brain.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

**********

A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life - despite damaging 90 percent of his brain - is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious.

Despite decades of research, our understanding of consciousness - being aware of one's existence - is still pretty thin. Many scientists think that the physical source of consciousness is based in the brain, but then how can someone lose the majority of their neurons and still be aware of themselves and their surroundings?

First described in The Lancet in 2007, the case of the man who appears to be missing most of his brain has been puzzling scientists for almost 10 years.

The French man was 44 years old at the time the journal article came out, and although his identity was kept confidential, the researchers explained how he'd lived most of his life without realising anything was wrong with him.

He only went to the doctor complaining of mild weakness in his left leg, when brain scans revealed that his skull was mostly filled with fluid, leaving just a thin outer layer of actual brain tissue, with the internal part of his brain almost totally eroded away.

But despite his minimal remaining brain tissue, the man wasn't mentally disabled - he had a low IQ of 75, but was working as a civil servant. He was also married with two children, and was relatively healthy.

Not only did his case study cause scientists to question what it takes to survive, it also challenges our understanding of consciousness.

**********

Interesting!

Sriram

[Sebastian Toe]

From the same article

"Update 3 Jan 2017: This man has a specific type of hydrocephalus known as chronic non-communicating hydrocephalus, which is where fluid slowly builds up in the brain. Rather than 90 percent of this man's brain being missing, it's more likely that it's simply been compressed into the thin layer you can see in the images above. We've corrected the story to reflect this."

[Stranger]

Hi everyone,

I have discussed this before some years back.....about a man who lives without 90% of his brain.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-man-who-lives-without-90-of-his-brain-is-challenging-our-understanding-of-consciousness

**********

A French man who lives a relatively normal, healthy life - despite damaging 90 percent of his brain - is causing scientists to rethink what it is from a biological perspective that makes us conscious.

Despite decades of research, our understanding of consciousness - being aware of one's existence - is still pretty thin. Many scientists think that the physical source of consciousness is based in the brain, but then how can someone lose the majority of their neurons and still be aware of themselves and their surroundings?

First described in The Lancet in 2007, the case of the man who appears to be missing most of his brain has been puzzling scientists for almost 10 years.

The French man was 44 years old at the time the journal article came out, and although his identity was kept confidential, the researchers explained how he'd lived most of his life without realising anything was wrong with him.

He only went to the doctor complaining of mild weakness in his left leg, when brain scans revealed that his skull was mostly filled with fluid, leaving just a thin outer layer of actual brain tissue, with the internal part of his brain almost totally eroded away.

But despite his minimal remaining brain tissue, the man wasn't mentally disabled - he had a low IQ of 75, but was working as a civil servant. He was also married with two children, and was relatively healthy.

Not only did his case study cause scientists to question what it takes to survive, it also challenges our understanding of consciousness.

**********

Interesting!

Sriram

Also interesting where you stopped quoting. Patently misleading title also noted. The story (as they say) continues...

Cleeremans has instead come up with a hypothesis that's based on the brain learning consciousness over and over again, rather than being born with it. Which means its location can be flexible and learnt by different brain regions.

"Consciousness is the brain's non-conceptual theory about itself, gained through experience - that is learning, interacting with itself, the world, and with other people," he explains.

He first published this idea back in 2011, and has now given a lecture on the subject at the 2016 Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness conference in Buenos Aires in June.

He calls his hypothesis the 'radical plasticity thesis', and it fits in pretty well with recent research that suggests the adult brain is more adaptable than we previously thought - and capable of taking on new roles in case of injury.

As Olivia Goldhill reports for Quartz:

"Cleeremans argues that in order to be aware, it's necessary not simply to know information, but to know that one knows information. In other words, unlike a thermostat that simply records temperature, conscious humans both know and care that they know.

Cleeremans claims that the brain is continually and unconsciously learning to re-describe its own activity to itself, and these descriptions form the basis of conscious experience."

But what does all that have to do with a man surviving with only 10 percent of his brain? According to Cleeremans, even though his remaining brain was only tiny, the neurons left over were able to still generate a theory about themselves, which means the man remained conscious of his actions.

Then there is the clarification that Seb has already quoted (not that I see much in the way of the 'correction' it claims).

[Sriram]

Also interesting where you stopped quoting. Patently misleading title also noted. The story (as they say) continues...

Cleeremans has instead come up with a hypothesis that's based on the brain learning consciousness over and over again, rather than being born with it. Which means its location can be flexible and learnt by different brain regions.

"Consciousness is the brain's non-conceptual theory about itself, gained through experience - that is learning, interacting with itself, the world, and with other people," he explains.

He first published this idea back in 2011, and has now given a lecture on the subject at the 2016 Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness conference in Buenos Aires in June.

He calls his hypothesis the 'radical plasticity thesis', and it fits in pretty well with recent research that suggests the adult brain is more adaptable than we previously thought - and capable of taking on new roles in case of injury.

As Olivia Goldhill reports for Quartz:

"Cleeremans argues that in order to be aware, it's necessary not simply to know information, but to know that one knows information. In other words, unlike a thermostat that simply records temperature, conscious humans both know and care that they know.

Cleeremans claims that the brain is continually and unconsciously learning to re-describe its own activity to itself, and these descriptions form the basis of conscious experience."

But what does all that have to do with a man surviving with only 10 percent of his brain? According to Cleeremans, even though his remaining brain was only tiny, the neurons left over were able to still generate a theory about themselves, which means the man remained conscious of his actions.

Then there is the clarification that Seb has already quoted (not that I see much in the way of the 'correction' it claims).

Blah! Blah! Blah!......  How many words to say 'I don't know'.

You people give so much of importance to the brain and claim it can do everything from generating NDE's to creating an illusion of Self.... and so on and  so forth... and here is a person with virtually no brain, leading a normal life.

[Stranger]

Blah! Blah! Blah!......  How many words to say 'I don't know'.

You people give so much of importance to the brain and claim it can do everything from generating NDE's to creating an illusion of Self.... and so on and  so forth... and here is a person with virtually no brain, leading a normal life.

The fact that you posted under a blatantly deceptive title, used highly selective quotes, ignored the important update that says that it's more likely the brain has just been compressed, rather than most of it being missing, and have now posted a rather stroppy and inaccurate (according to the aforementioned update) response to having those things pointed out, rather suggests that you're not as confident as you want us to think....

[Sriram]

What am I not confident of?!

I am extremely confident that the consciousness/mind and the brain are two different things and that the brain is not the thinking, self willed, creating entity you people claim it to be.   It is an important organ of course, but it is only a platform for the mind and consciousness....just as the rest of the body is.

[Stranger]

What am I not confident of?!

I am extremely confident that the consciousness/mind and the brain are two different things and that the brain is not the thinking, self willed, creating entity you people claim it to be.   It is an important organ of course, but it is only a platform for the mind and consciousness....just as the rest of the body is.

Being extremely confident of something for which you have no evidence or reasoning is, of course, irrational in the extreme, but it's difficult to see why you'd feel the need to totally misrepresent an article that you're going to link to. It's not like people were ever not going to notice what you'd done, so what was the point?

Seems that the most obvious explanations are that you are either not that confident after all and are desperately clutching at straws, or that you are so overconfident that you didn't notice yourself and only saw the parts of the article that conformed to your blind faith.

[SteveH]

Ooh, Matron!

[Sebastian Toe]

Being extremely confident of something for which you have no evidence or reasoning is, of course, irrational in the extreme, but it's difficult to see why you'd feel the need to totally misrepresent an article that you're going to link to. It's not like people were ever not going to notice what you'd done, so what was the point?

Seems that the most obvious explanations are that you are either not that confident after all and are desperately clutching at straws, or that you are so overconfident that you didn't notice yourself and only saw the parts of the article that conformed to your blind faith.

I'll go for the last option.

[SteveH]

This is not new. I remember, many years ago, seeing a documentary about three English people with the same condition (hydrocephaly), who were also living normal lives with a large proportion of their brains apparently missing. the one woman said that she'd always had a very poor memory, and wondered if it was connected, but in all other respects she was of normal intelligence, as were the two blokes.

[Sriram]

'Living without a brain' is only part of the argument.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

[torridon]

What am I not confident of?!

I am extremely confident that the consciousness/mind and the brain are two different things and that the brain is not the thinking, self willed, creating entity you people claim it to be.   It is an important organ of course, but it is only a platform for the mind and consciousness....just as the rest of the body is.

By this logic, the heart is important for blood circulation, but it is only a 'platform' for blood pumping; the liver is important, but it is only a 'platform' for filtration etc.  If the brain is not the organ that does the thinking, then you need to have an alternative proposal that better explains the evidence.

[Stranger]

'Living without a brain' is only part of the argument.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

Nobody is living without a brain. It's already been pointed out to you that this is misleading. Apparently you don't care about honesty. You've also, yet again, referenced your own blog without acknowledging that it is your own material.

As for the content, we don't have to read far to get to total absurdities. Of the three basic reasons "to believe that the Mind is not entirely a product of the brain...", the first is comically absurd, the second is trying to replace evolution with superstition, and the third just points out that other physical processes are involved in our mental state.

[Maeght]

'Living without a brain' is only part of the argument.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/mind-and-brain/

Why do you link to your own blog?Is it just so that you don't have to type out your point of view again? Or ....

[Sriram]

By this logic, the heart is important for blood circulation, but it is only a 'platform' for blood pumping; the liver is important, but it is only a 'platform' for filtration etc.  If the brain is not the organ that does the thinking, then you need to have an alternative proposal that better explains the evidence.

I am talking about consciousness and mind continuing to function normally in the virtual absence of a brain. In the absence of a heart or liver its functions don't continue.

[torridon]

I am talking about consciousness and mind continuing to function normally in the virtual absence of a brain. In the absence of a heart or liver its functions don't continue.

When your brain dies, you die.  You cannot continue to live once your brain has died.  The fact that people can in some exceptional cases continue to function normally after brain injury or disease is testimony to the remarkable plasticity of the brain.  Like NDE's this is not evidence that the mind is somehow a separate thing from the brain.

[Sriram]

When your brain dies, you die.  You cannot continue to live once your brain has died.  The fact that people can in some exceptional cases continue to function normally after brain injury or disease is testimony to the remarkable plasticity of the brain.  Like NDE's this is not evidence that the mind is somehow a separate thing from the brain.

When your brain dies, you die.

That is true of the heart as well....and almost all other major organs. I am talking here about the near absence of the brain. Missing 90%  brain and not being aware of it for 40 years....?!

There seem to be some other cases as well, as Steve has mentioned. We don't know how many people are actually walking around normally without 90% of their brain.

[SteveH]

It's really not difficult to understand: the mind - consciousness, emotions, will etc - is an emergent property of the brain, when it gets sufficiently large or complex. NDEs prove nothing about the survival of consciousness after death, because they are near death experiences. We cannot, in the nature of things, know what, if anything, follows death, because no-one comes back to tell us, because death is, by definition, final. Out-of-body experiences are hallucinations. These people who apparently have little brain left probably have a full brain, highly compressed.

[Sebastian Toe]

When your brain dies, you die.

That is true of the heart as well....and almost all other major organs. I am talking here about the near absence of the brain. Missing 90%  brain and not being aware of it for 40 years....?!

There seem to be some other cases as well, as Steve has mentioned. We don't know how many people are actually walking around normally without 90% of their brain.

But they are not without 90% of their brain, are they?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

We don't know how many people are actually walking around normally without 90% of their brain.

We likely do: none (and I'm including here the subject of the article you so egregiously misrepresented). 

[SteveH]

There seem to be some other cases as well, as Steve has mentioned. We don't know how many people are actually walking around normally without 90% of their brain.

I said "apparently missing", but I should have been clearer. The programme I saw said that their brains were probably highly compressed, rather than largely missing. A person with 90% of their brain really missing would be at best in a permanent vegetative state, and probably dead. Brain damage always causes mental or physical disability, or both, although the brain does have a good ability to recover, especially in the young, partly by other parts of the brain taking over the function of the damaged part. Why do we never hear of people who've really lost 90% of their brain, perhaps due to a stroke or head trauma, making a full recovery and living a normal life? Because it can't happen, that's why. The mind is not the brain, but the two are inextricably linked. I'm saying nothing one way or the other about life after death, but if there is any kind of post-mortem conscious existence, it isn't in this world. St Paul talks about us being given resurrection bodies, which would be consistent with consciousness being dependent on a functioning, physical brain. (I'm not saying I believe that.)

[torridon]

When your brain dies, you die.

That is true of the heart as well....and almost all other major organs. I am talking here about the near absence of the brain. Missing 90%  brain and not being aware of it for 40 years....?!

There seem to be some other cases as well, as Steve has mentioned. We don't know how many people are actually walking around normally without 90% of their brain.

Wot Steve said

[ekim]

I've posted this link before but it seems relevant to this topic.  It gives an account of the inner experience of a scientist well versed in brain physiology and who suffered brain damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

[Outrider]

When your brain dies, you die.

That is true of the heart as well....and almost all other major organs.

No. Your heart can die, but you can survive with a donor organ or an artificial organ. Kidneys, lungs, skin... the number of organs that we can, temporarily or permanently, replace so that dead organs do not necessarily result in dead people is increasing. The brain is not one of them, and I'm not aware of anyone that thinks that's likely to change any time soon, if it's possible at all.

I am talking here about the near absence of the brain. Missing 90%  brain and not being aware of it for 40 years....?!

I'm more concerned with the range of people - the Trumps of the world - who apparently have 100% of their brain and we're all aware that it doesn't seem like it.

O.

[torridon]

I've posted this link before but it seems relevant to this topic.  It gives an account of the inner experience of a scientist well versed in brain physiology and who suffered brain damage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyyjU8fzEYU

Thanks Ekim.  Remarkable talk worth watching again and again.