Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
This would've made a nice chapter in books by Oliver Sacks
Also, there's the "Controversy" that states some scientists consider blindsighted people to not be blind. I'd say it is the same as with other cognitive issues, one may technically not be blind but how would you call that when one cannot use their sight if not blindness
I looked into the controversy articles that people wrote, and they were mostly saying that if certain conditions were satisfied then it might not be blindness, even though they did replicate the experiments the other scientists did and got the same results.
The scientists objecting are, as I understand, saying that because of a third test they devised, then it could be argued that it isn't technically "sight".
But the controversy is a lot weaker in my mind from what I've read the repeated abstracts and experiments over the last 50 years that document blindsight.
One of the articles specifically mentioned a part of the brand that isn't the visual cortex that frogs and animals can use to see objects even if they are completely blind, and that's why they did the tests with the chimpanzee in the first place, because of a frog can do it, why not a chimpanzee.
I can't tell from what I've read if humans are supposed to have this same ancient component that lower animals do, but I assume I'll be able to find out if I keep digging.
Thank you for providing insight.
What I mean is more that things related to consciousness, subjectivity, and qualia are rather loosely defined and aren't guaranteed to have any measurable and good definition
You're right, something vaguely defined can definitely have that problem.
Blindsight stood out to me a significant because the visual cortex is damaged, not functioning or missing all together and there's a part of the brain that works with lower(and higher) animals that apparently allows them to see still, somehow.
If it was a matter of definition, like "degraded sight" versus "partial blindness", I would nou have found this as compelling and certainly not noteworthy enough to post.
But if you are missing the part of the brain that processes sight, or are missing an eyeball... I believe one of the test participants had his actual eyeball destroyed.
If it's the physical lack of a processing unit and still we get the result of apparent sight and there is no conclusive scientific objection to half a century of scientific experiments measuring how much blind people can see, that's fascinating to me.
Actual eyeball destroyed should not allow to percept anything I think, but I don't know of course
Other than that, as a layman, I would expect there to be some automatic and autonomous stuff related to vision but not requiring conscious results. After I learned of some processing done right in the eye (can't find the link, it was some experiment on cat eyes) I'm more inclined to think that a lot of processing is done out of consciousness, or sometimes even brain