Posts Tagged ‘head’
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it”*…
Annaka Harris on the difficulty in understanding consciousness…
The central challenge to a science of consciousness is that we can never acquire direct evidence of consciousness apart from our own experience. When we look at all the organisms (or collections of matter) in the universe and ask ourselves, “Which of these collections of matter contain conscious experiences?” in the broadest sense, the answer has to be “some” or “all”—the only thing we have direct evidence to support is that the answer isn’t “none,” as we know that at least our own conscious experiences exist.
Until we attain a significantly more advanced understanding of the brain, and of many other systems in nature for that matter, we’re forced to begin with one of two assumptions: either consciousness arises at some point in the physical world, or it is a fundamental part of the physical world (some, or all). And the sciences have thus far led with the assumption that the answer is “some” (and so have I, for most of my career) for understandable reasons. But I would argue that the grounds for this starting assumption have become weaker as we learn more about the brain and the role consciousness plays in behavior.
The problem is that what we deem to be conscious processes in nature is based solely on reportability. And at the very least, the work with split-brain and locked-in patients should have radically shifted our reliance on reportability at this point…
The realization that all of our scientific investigations of consciousness are unwittingly rooted in a blind assumption led me to pose two questions that I think are essential for a science of consciousness to keep asking:
- Can we find conclusive evidence of consciousness from outside a system?
- Is consciousness causal? (Is it doing something? Is it driving any behavior?)
The truth is that we have less and less reason to respond “yes” to either question with any confidence.And if the answer to these questions is in fact “no,” which is entirely possible, we’ll be forced to reconsider our jumping off point. Personally I’m still agnostic, putting the chances that consciousness is fundamental vs. emergent at more or less 50/50. But after focusing on this topic for more than twenty years, I’m beginning to think that assuming consciousness is fundamental is actually a slightly more coherent starting place…
“The Strong Assumption,” from @annakaharris.
See also: “How Do We Think Beyond Our Own Existence?“, from @annehelen.
* Albert Einstein
###
As we noodle on knowing, we might recall that it was on this date in 1987 that a patent (U.S. Patent No. 4,666,425) was awarded to Chet Fleming for a “Device for Perfusing an Animal Head”– a device for keeping a severed head alive.
That device, described as a “cabinet,” used a series of tubes to accomplish what a body does for most heads that are not “discorped”—that is, removed from their bodies. In the patent application, Fleming describes a series of tubes that would circulate blood and nutrients through the head and take deoxygenated blood away, essentially performing the duties of a living thing’s circulatory system. Fleming also suggested that the device might also be used for grimmer purposes.
“If desired, waste products and other metabolites may be removed from the blood, and nutrients, therapeutic or experimental drugs, anti-coagulants and other substances may be added to the blood,” the patent reads.
Although obviously designed for research purposes, the patent does acknowledge that “it is possible that after this invention has been thoroughly tested on research animals, it might also be used on humans suffering from various terminal illnesses.”
Fleming, a trained lawyer who had the reputation of being an eccentric, wasn’t exactly joking, but he was worried that somebody would start doing this research. The patent was a “prophetic patent”—that is, a patent for something which has never been built and may never be built. It was likely intended to prevent others from trying to keep severed heads alive using that technology…
Smithsonian Magazine

“A paperclip can be a wondrous thing. More times than I can remember, one of these has gotten me out of a tight spot”…
“For the past seven years I have done nothing but travel around the world getting shot up, locked up, blown up … and all I have to show for it are a couple of empty rolls of duct tape.”
– MacGyver (MacGyver, Season Two, “Friends”)
Readers of a certain age will remember MacGyver– the man-with-a-mullet who, from 1985 through 1992, fashioned jury-rigged solutions to the dangerous problems that were his weekly lot as the secret agent star of his eponymously-titled TV series.
Now Fathom Information Design has compiled an interactive collection of every “recipe” from the show…
click the image above, or here
Have you ever wondered in how many different episodes MacGyver has made an arc welder (answer: 3 times in episodes 6, 52, and 87)? Or perhaps you forgot about your favorite episode (season 1, episode 12) when Mac escapes via a casket that transforms into a jetski. And how many times has Mac made a diversion? In order to placate all of your MacGyver-related curiosities, we offer you MacRecipes.
We assembled data from MacGyverOnline and IMDB, and using Processing and Processing.js we produced the ultimate MacGyver recipe book. Click on any of the recipes to see information about the ingredients as well as information about the episode. Further investigate the ubiquity of simple recipe ingredients and products by clicking on words listed under “Similar Recipes.”
Younger readers not yet familiar with this inspirational icon of inventiveness (and older readers who are nostalgic) can find all seven seasons streaming on Netflix Instant…
[TotH to Flowing Data]
As we resolve to Be Prepared, we might recall that it was on this date in 1987 that U.S. Patent No. 4,666,425 for keeping a severed (human) head alive (“DEVICE FOR PERFUSING AN ANIMAL HEAD“) was issued to “Chet Fleming.” “Fleming” was the pseudonym of engineer and patent attorney Patrick Kelly, who believed that the patent might allow him to block– or at least to slow– research in this area (which, as he describes in his book If We Can Keep a Severed Head Alive …, he saw as ethically dangerous). Sadly for Kelly’s cause, the patent was subsequently invalidated.
You must be logged in to post a comment.