Consciousness without [the majority of] a brain?

[The Beast]

No doubt. The brain has an altered body image with lots of generalizations and concepts of self and other. How can the concepts be formed with half a brain? It is in the development of communication. In the case of monkeys there is actual progress towards awareness. Monkeys have a lacking underlying “substratum” so other means of possible communication has been found. There is neural basis of self- awareness and in the case of monkeys’ their neural pathways have been altered with cognitive techniques and some success…In the case of an accident of brain injury with losses of more than half of the brain, the awareness of self and other is not lost in most instances. The wiring has been mostly preserved.

[psyreporter]

It's still all ultimately one thing, just as the atmosphere, ocean and land are ultimately one thing.

Would the indicated all include consciousness or would it be one as in a totality which requires an observer? If it includes consciousness (i.e. the observer), would the reference one be applicable? Can a begin, by which the concept one is applicable, has preceded the observer?

[Consul]

It's still all ultimately one thing, just as the atmosphere, ocean and land are ultimately one thing.

If Spinoza's worldview is correct, and the world or spacetime is one substance and the only one there is, there is still a difference between it and its attributes.

QUOTE>
"I have insisted that space-time has properties, yet it is not itself had as a property or even a set of properties, and it could not exist without properties. A propertied space-time is a one-object universe and space-time satisfies the correct definitions of 'substratum'."

(Martin, C. B. The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 47)
<QUOTE

[Terrapin Station]

It's still all ultimately one thing, just as the atmosphere, ocean and land are ultimately one thing.

When I brought this up in the past, wasn't there skepticism that some people claim such things ("It's all ultimately one thing")?

[Sy Borg]

It's still all ultimately one thing, just as the atmosphere, ocean and land are ultimately one thing.

When I brought this up in the past, wasn't there skepticism that some people claim such things ("It's all ultimately one thing")?

Then I can expect the same skepticism. It's the simplest of logic. It's all one thing and it's also many things. Is the universe conscious? Is the Earth conscious? Of course they are. It's not as though intelligent animals like humans are separate from it.

[Sculptor1]

When I brought this up in the past, wasn't there skepticism that some people claim such things ("It's all ultimately one thing")?

Then I can expect the same skepticism. It's the simplest of logic. It's all one thing and it's also many things. Is the universe conscious? Is the Earth conscious? Of course they are. It's not as though intelligent animals like humans are separate from it.

It's not a very useful way of looking at the world.
I have more to fear from a gun than a banana, yet lest's face it they are both just made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. I they were really the same things I could shoot myself with a banana whilst trying to eat the gun.
What to do?

[Sy Borg]

It's still all ultimately one thing, just as the atmosphere, ocean and land are ultimately one thing.

If Spinoza's worldview is correct, and the world or spacetime is one substance and the only one there is, there is still a difference between it and its attributes.

QUOTE>
"I have insisted that space-time has properties, yet it is not itself had as a property or even a set of properties, and it could not exist without properties. A propertied space-time is a one-object universe and space-time satisfies the correct definitions of 'substratum'."

(Martin, C. B. The Mind in Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. p. 47)
<QUOTE

I see that as a matter of perspective. Properties are constructs of observation rather than ontically separated. Consider the forces - gravity, the nuclear forces and EM. In the end you simply have things coming together, repelling, accelerating, slowing, and aligned in directions or not. These things may happen in different predictable ways under varying conditions, but that is broadly what is happening. You can zoom in, pan out, focus on one area or a region, and each time you will arrive a different answers about the nature of reality.

[Sy Borg]

Then I can expect the same skepticism. It's the simplest of logic. It's all one thing and it's also many things. Is the universe conscious? Is the Earth conscious? Of course they are. It's not as though intelligent animals like humans are separate from it.

It's not a very useful way of looking at the world.
I have more to fear from a gun than a banana, yet lest's face it they are both just made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. I they were really the same things I could shoot myself with a banana whilst trying to eat the gun.What to do?

I cannot remember too many people telling me that I am useful so I expect you are right :) Certainly shooting oneself with a banana would seem the preferable course of action above.

Still, as I say, reality is all one thing and it is many things. Depending on the circumstance, it's helpful to, as I spoke about above, zoom in or pan out with our perceptions. Detail and perspective. In this busy world, the latter is seen as a luxury only indulged in by scientists, philosophers, theists and stoners, yet it it the lack of broader perspective that causes an incredible amount of bother to our planet, to each other, to ourselves personally.

[Steve3007]

Yes, the Standard Model may go the way of Ptolomy's geocentrism, which enjoyed primacy for over a thousand years.

In fairness to Ptolomy, I think it's interesting to note that his geocentrism lasted longer than Copernicus's heliocentrism. The idea that there is an absolute sense in which the Sun is motionless at the centre of the Universe is no more or less ridiculous than the idea that there is an absolute sense in which the Earth is motionless at the centre of the Universe. The reference frame that we regard as motionless is just a matter of convenience. In a reference frame that is stationary with respect to the Earth, the Sun goes around the Earth. The objection to Ptolomy's view is not that it is wrong in some absolute sense, but that it is mathematically over-complicated when considering reference frames that are not stationary with respect to the Earth.

It's interesting that when I pointed this out here recently I was irrelevantly told that I was a flat-earther!

viewtopic.php?p=351458#p351458

[The Beast]

Whether the question of the OP is rhetorical is a mystery. However, the second set of images to the right are of Brodmann’s area 42. So,( if I was guessing) I could make the case of silent speech in the rewiring of the STP and STS. In recent literature there is correlation (the rewiring) and the area of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Experiments with monkeys have found that their area 14 has a clear homologue in the human VMPFC.

[psyreporter]

Whether the question of the OP is rhetorical is a mystery. However, the second set of images to the right are of Brodmann’s area 42. So,( if I was guessing) I could make the case of silent speech in the rewiring of the STP and STS. In recent literature there is correlation (the rewiring) and the area of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Experiments with monkeys have found that their area 14 has a clear homologue in the human VMPFC.

The question is not rhetorical. It is a valid question.

Can it be said that a 10% fraction of a brain is to be considered "a brain"?

At question in the OP is whether it is a valid idea to consider that the brain is the origin of consciousness.

The assumption that consciousness originates in the brain does not by itself justify the idea that a 10% fraction of a brain is to be considered a brain.

The questions in the OP:

1) is it evident from the mentioned cases that consciousness does not originate in the brain?

Can it be established that a 10% fraction of a brain enables a human to perform normal in life? Can it be established that a 10% fraction of a brain produces consciousness?

The question in the OP enables the discovery of an answer to those questions, by which it would be possible to show that a 10% fraction of a brain could be a valid origin of consciousness.

I have seen no arguments other than an attack of the question in the OP on the basis of the notion that the mentioned people do have some brain tissue. I do not consider the attack valid if one cannot provide evidence or reasoning by which a 10% fraction of a brain is to be considered "a brain". And even if one could provide reasoning, it is not just to assume that one should have known such reasoning to be possible beforehand, or even to have assumed such reasoning to be basic logic, by which an attack on the question in the OP is invalid by definition.

2) is there a theory of consciousness that could explain the mentioned cases?

If it is not possible to provide arguments by which a 10% fraction of the brain can be the origin of consciousness, then, what theory of consciousness would be compatible? The mentioned cases may provide an opportunity to discover plausibility of other theories.

The topic simply intends to question the validity of the idea that consciousness - and thereby human emotions, behaviors and thoughts - originate in the brain.

Does the brain produce consciousness? Do the mentioned cases provide an ability to defend or disprove that view?

[Sy Borg]

Yes, the Standard Model may go the way of Ptolomy's geocentrism, which enjoyed primacy for over a thousand years.

In fairness to Ptolomy, I think it's interesting to note that his geocentrism lasted longer than Copernicus's heliocentrism. The idea that there is an absolute sense in which the Sun is motionless at the centre of the Universe is no more or less ridiculous than the idea that there is an absolute sense in which the Earth is motionless at the centre of the Universe. The reference frame that we regard as motionless is just a matter of convenience. In a reference frame that is stationary with respect to the Earth, the Sun goes around the Earth. The objection to Ptolomy's view is not that it is wrong in some absolute sense, but that it is mathematically over-complicated when considering reference frames that are not stationary with respect to the Earth.

It's interesting that when I pointed this out here recently I was irrelevantly told that I was a flat-earther!

viewtopic.php?p=351458#p351458

Really, the Earth can logically be treated as flat in the same way as the Earth can be seen as immobile, but I expect the accusation had more to do with 2020 grumpiness than logic.

If I'm designing a sports oval, I will operate as though the Earth is a discworld. But if I'm building a giant particle accelerator or gravity wave observatory that relies on great precision, then I have to take Earth's curvature into account. By the same token, Ptolomy's geocentrism worked well enough until researchers broadened the scope of their projects.

[Consul]

2) is there a theory of consciousness that could explain the mentioned cases?

If it is not possible to provide arguments by which a 10% fraction of the brain can be the origin of consciousness, then, what theory of consciousness would be compatible? The mentioned cases may provide an opportunity to discover plausibility of other theories.

We've already had that! There is no scientific verification of your 10% thesis.
Anyway, a brain's volume is reducible in two ways: through the removal of parts or through compression. And if brain tissue can be compressed, the structural and functional connectivity of the neurons therein might largely be preserved. Compression is not the same as destruction! Moreover, even a loss of neuronal connections and functions in one of its parts can be compensated by other ones owing to the brain's astonishing neuroplasticity.
The bottom line is that there are no good reasons to believe that the fact that there are conscious people with a (more or less) reduced brain volume is inconsistent with the assumption that consciousness is realized by and in brains or certain parts of brains.

[Consul]

I see that as a matter of perspective. Properties are constructs of observation rather than ontically separated.

No, natural or physical properties are observation-independent; and this is true even in quantum physics. Both observations and observers themselves consist of things with observation-independent properties. Natural/physical things aren't propertyless, qualitatively empty blobs waiting to be endowed with properties by observers or measurers.

QUOTE>
"Was the world wave function waiting for millions of years until a single-celled creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some more highly qualified measurer—with a Ph.D.?"

(Bell, J. S. "Quantum Mechanics for Cosmologists." In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed., 117-138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 117)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

Then I can expect the same skepticism. It's the simplest of logic. It's all one thing and it's also many things. Is the universe conscious? Is the Earth conscious? Of course they are. It's not as though intelligent animals like humans are separate from it.

Speaking of logic, I smell a fallacy here:

1. a is F.
2. a is part of b.
3. Therefore, b is F.